Trump suggests he would ditch F-35 in favor of cheaper plane

[Simca]

I don't like Trump at all, but I'm practical.

If he can strong-arm Boeing into getting it done cheaper or find a better alternative, power to him!

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

I don't like Trump at all, but I'm practical.

If he can strong-arm Boeing into getting it done cheaper or find a better alternative, power to him!

Given how military spending on contracts usually works out, he might get a cheaper quote before Boeing starts work on the project, but it'll end up costing the same in the end.

[Skroe]

(1) It is not in Trump's authority to cancel the F-35. The whole thing about "President's cancelling programs" (see: B-1B, Ares / Constellation program, B-2 Bomber, Presidential Helicopter, A-12 Avenger II, Crusader Artillery, ending F-22 procurement) is a shorthand for a process where by the President's next annual budget zeroes the program's money reqest and congress agreess to pass legislation to that effect authorizing the Pentagon to cancel the contract.

For an absolutely monumental number of reasons this will not happen with the F-35. Least of which is this: the biggest beneficiary of the F-35 program is the Marines, with the F-35B is getting a monumental step forward in their own power projection ability (and the US is gaining effectively 10 medium-aircraft carriers in the process). With a Marine at the head of the DoD who understands this uniquely... yeah... he won't advocate for such a cut.

(2) Canceling the F-35 in favor of the F/A-18 is stupid for many, many reasons due to the F-35's overall far greater capability. Turning an F-35 into an "80% F/A-18" would take 10 years and likely cost as much as an F-35 in the end.


(3) The F-22 restart is being investigated anyway (it was ordered last year, thanks Russia), but here's the rub... while the F-22's pysical structure makes it the best fighter in the world, it's technology is antiquated compared to the F-35. The F-35 is "what comes next" after the F-22, quite different than the relationship between F-15 and F-16, which share a much closer relationship. The biggest issue regarding an F-22 restart is if the Air Force would put the F-22A back into production (which would be difficult because many systems for it are obsolete), or do the better option, which is to effectively put the F-35 package inside an F-22 air frame and call it the "F-22C". Either option will take five years and about $30 billion.


(4) The F-35 is two programs: the actual fighter jet (which itself is really three programs), and the technology behind it. THe technology is revolutionary and important and is providing the foundation for the next generation of American Air Supremacy. The B-21 Raider, and the forthcoming F-22 and F/A-18 successor are among the planes that will draw heavily from the F-35. The B-21 Raider for example, will almost certainly use two non-afterburning variants of the F135 engine used in the F-35, itself a scaled up and modified version of the F119 used in the F-22 raptor. Without the F135, the B-21 would have to use four engines like the B-2 Spirit (in that case, 4x F118s), which would make the entire program more expensive.


(5) The F-22 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Successor Programs are gearing up now. The F-X and F/A-XX (or Next Generation Air Dominance) are both in the conceptual stages now for new aircraft procurement about a decade out. Both will draw from the F-35 and evolve it. Any swap to the F/A-18 will delay it. A restart of the F-22 would delay it too (but might be worth it if the "F-22C" option is chosen.

(6) The Next generation of air dominance and strike aircraft probably look a lot different than the F/A-18, F-35 and F-22. They're probably far larger, about the size of a bomber (the B-21 raider may be ideal actually) and carry an absolutely huge payload of A.I. guided ultra-long range missiles. This concept was proposed as part of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program which lead to the F-22 in the 1980s as the "Missiler" concept, but the technology wasn't there yet. Missiles were too large. Miniturization in sensors and computers may have allowed that time to arrive now.

(7) Procuring F/A-18 Super Hornet's entirely misses the point. WHat the Navy i particular really needs is an ultra long range stealthy strike drone. Such a program, UCLASS program was canceled by the Obama Administration, in favor of the less ambitious Stingray tanker drone, itself a great program but markedly different in ambition and technical requirement. More broadly, Stingray could be seen as an attempt to defend the F-35C variant from cuts as UCLASS would do a similar role at much greater range. The Navy needs UCLASS and Stingray, regardless, eventually, and if Trump wants to make a move, that would be a great one.


All in all, not going to happen, period. This isnt the 1980s. The Defense Industrial Complex learned from the end of the B-1, the end of the B-2 and the end of the A-12 Avenger II.

The ABSOLUTELY BEST THING Trump could do is ask Congress to restart F-22 production, but make Boeing the lead contractor / systems integrator instead of Lockheed Martin. Take the "F-22C" route and integrate F-35 tech into the F-22 frame. This will diversify and restore America's aircraft fighter industrial base by allowing Lockheed to build the F-35, Boeing to build the F-22 and Northrop to build the B-21 Raider. Boeing built a large portion of the F-22.

[Ulmita]

Buy as many F-35s as the 400-500bln the american people have payed so far (i am not 100% sure on the amount tbh), and restart F-22 with f-35 electronics.
This program is disgraceful.

[Deleted]

This program is disgraceful.

No its just badly designed - About 10% will have Vtol capability (because the Marines want it) but all 100% have the design deficiencies to accommodate the Vtol.

[Skroe]

Buy as many F-35s as the 400-500bln the american people have payed so far (i am not 100% sure on the amount tbh), and restart F-22 with f-35 electronics.
This program is disgraceful.

The US has spent about $95 billion the F-35 so far, including on the engine research.



Every other number is either the production lifetime cost (3000 planes over 30 years) or the life-of-the-fleet cost (55+ years, $1.45 trillion).

But in terms of dollars spent to date, it's been between $2-10 billion per year since 2001, with the larger number more recent.


Going forward, this is what it looks like:





It's also worth noting that the F-35 tech is included within the F-35 budget (not just unit production costs, which is lower). From 1994-2014, R&D was $46.2 billion while procurement was $39.5 billion. With the F-22, much of what qualifies as R&D in the F-35 sense (such was with the F119 engine, on which the F135 in the F-35 is based was done in it's own program.

The F-35 is yet another example of which it's better to have big programs divided up into smaller budgetary items to make a smaller target. Kind of like the F/A-18 E/F ironically enough. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, introduced in 1998, is considerable different from the F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet. The Super Hornet is a product of the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II. This thing:



The so called "Flying Dorito". Yes, in another world, every US Carrier would have 30 of these things today. Anyway, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney cancels the A-12 Avenger II program due to cost over-runs. It's contractor, MacDonald Douglas, goes under and is bought by Boeing. The Navy needs a replacement for the A-6 Intruder. It decides, in the post-Cold War world of leaner defense budgets, to consolidate it with a F/A-18 upgrade into something that can replace the F-14 Tomcat as well (The F-22N Navalized was canceled too). So Boeing takes a ton of A-12 Avenger II tech, melds some F/A-18 stuff and other stuff into it, put's it in an enlarged F/A-18 Air Frame and sells the Super Hornet as an "upgrade".

In reality, the Super Hornet was largely a new aircraft, and far better than the disappointment the F/A-18 Hornet turned out to be.

Congress barely realized they had what amounted to an all new fighter on its hands until it was delivered. This is not the first, nor last time the Pentagon did this. The forthcoming Flight III Arleigh Burke Destroyers are considerably different than the Fligh I, Flight II and Flight IIAs in the fleet now. The Virgina Class SSNs procured in the last two years and under construction have had 40% of their design re-enginered and redesigned from earlier blocks to introduce new technology.

This is how sausage is made.


And again, an F-22 with F-35 tech would be a big program - 5 years minimum, for $30 billion. And it likely would not be available for export. And even then, if it were, being a two engined aircraft, it would be a premium product. Japan could afford it. Australia could afford it. Saudi Arabia could afford it. But like the F-15, buying double the engines would probably be too much for most countries, especially if they just did that for the complementary Eurofighter Typhoon. Middle Income European countries, or countries with modest-sized taxpayer populations would likely find the F-22C as unaffordable as the F-15 was (that said, the F/A-18 had somewhat better success).

All in all, while an 'F-22C' is probably the right solution for American air superiority (though not strike), it is almost certainly the wrong solution for almost everybody not named Japan, Australia and Saudi Arabia. Most of our European allies should probably get the Rafale, Gripen, or Eurofighter in that case, but all but the Typhoon have big downsides compared to the F-35 or F-22.

Best option is to just stick with the F-35 and the US should restart F-22 production. The report to Congress is due in January I believe, so we'll see how that goes.

[Annoying]

F-18: 60M,
F-35A: 98M
F-35B: 105M
F-35C: 115M

So the F-18 is at least (bare minimum) 40% cheaper than the F-35.

If you put that % against the 1.2Trillion program that the F-35 costs you'll pocket over half a trillion to spend on one of the most mediocre (if not bad) medicare systems of this earth, send lots and lots of kids to college for free, or give each and every American 1 million and still have some insane money left to overhaul completely the army of a small country.

He is in the right path, the cost is just ridiculous.

It's not like we can get the money back. Also, math. 1.2Trillion/300million = $4,000 per person. Giving every American $1m would be ~$300Trillion..

[Skroe]

No its just badly designed - About 10% will have Vtol capability (because the Marines want it) but all 100% have the design deficiencies to accommodate the Vtol.

If you're referring to the bulky body, keep in mind what is being asked: in most scenarios, like the F-22 before it, the F-35 will only carry internal arms. The F-22's body is surprisingly bulky due to that. The F-35s must be as well.

That said the F-35 has benefited considerably from the Small Diameter Bomb and SDB-II programs to increase potency, because it allows the carrying of much more arms. And while no such air superiority missile that size yet exists, one should be on the scene in the next decade that does the same to that role.

The F-35 could have been modestly less pudgey around the midsection without VTOL, but not considerably so. It plainly doesn't have the wing area or the engine to be a super fighter. But that was never the case: the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon exist for that. And in any event, with it's sensors, the F-35 with the AIM-120D or better yet the MBDA Metoer, will be positively scary in air superiority roles as well. Remember: the F-22 doesn't have Infra Red Search and Track... yet. The F-35 has 360 degree IRST.





- - - Updated - - -

Buy as many F-35s as the 400-500bln the american people have payed so far (i am not 100% sure on the amount tbh), and restart F-22 with f-35 electronics.
This program is disgraceful.

Oh and one more thing.

It wouldn't be enough to just restart the F-22. Again, restart it, and make Boeing the principle contractor and integrator, instead of Lockheed.

As soon as the F/A-18 line shuts down (probably mid-2020s), Lockheed becomes the only maker of fighter aircraft (F-35), while Northrop makes bombers (B-21 Raider). This makes Boeing the drone and "misc" aircraft company (things like the P-8 Posiedon, or KC-46). That is of course, excluding the F-X and F/A-XX replacements to the F-22 and F/A-18.

It's in the US defense industrial interest to have production line diversity. Having Lockheed mostly make Air Force fighters and Boeing mostly make Navy fighters the last 20 years largely preserved that, in the way the Virgina class subs were made under an industrial policy to keep two American submarine building companies open.

In this new era, we need to get back to having diversity of production lines and undo some (but certainly not all) of the 1990s defense industry consolidation.

[Kellhound]

F-18: 60M,
F-35A: 98M
F-35B: 105M
F-35C: 115M

So the F-18 is at least (bare minimum) 40% cheaper than the F-35.

If you put that % against the 1.2Trillion program that the F-35 costs you'll pocket over half a trillion to spend on one of the most mediocre (if not bad) medicare systems of this earth, send lots and lots of kids to college for free, or give each and every American 1 million and still have some insane money left to overhaul completely the army of a small country.

He is in the right path, the cost is just ridiculous.

First, you are comparing the unit cost of the F-18 from several years ago against the preproduction costs of the F-35.
Second, the F-35 is more advanced and has overall superior performance to the F-18E (especially the F-35A). Bringing the F-18 to the same level of avionics will remove most if not all cost savings.
Third, the F-18 cannot replace the AV-8B.

Most of that trillion dollars either has already been spent in R&D or (and this is by far the biggest chunk) represents operating cost over 50+ years of planned service.

[Zeta333]

Going to applaud him as I'm all for gutting the military. Of course, I don't think he said that gutting the military was also his plan.

says someone whos never served.

[Paranoid Android]

I will not debate which is more cost effective the F-35 or say the Hornet. I do know that Trump boasts he wants to go crazy on the military budget. As a person who thinks our Military Industrial Complex is out of control. I cannot be on board of him saying he will cut one possible money pit, just to go on a crazy shopping spree that we do not need.

[Zeta333]

I will not debate which is more cost effective the F-35 or say the Hornet. I do know that Trump boasts he wants to go crazy on the military budget. As a person who thinks our Military Industrial Complex is out of control. I cannot be on board of him saying he will cut one possible money pit, just to go on a crazy shopping spree that we do not need.

The military spending isnt out of control, its the mandatory ordering of shit the military doesnt need, the scrapping of what it does need is wrong. Iv seen 2 different uniform patterns introduced for the us army in the past 10 years alone. The a10 is being scrapped despite it being one of the best attack planes ever produced, tanks keep getting ordered despite generals saying we dont need anymore. The militarys are still issued with m16/m4 M9 m249 despite all of those needing to be replaced some 10 years ago.

[Kellhound]

And you do right? Also, according to this: https://web.archive.org/web/20140401...BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
the cost of the f-18 is as stated.

Lastly, the F-18 is the only aircraft capable in the world of owning an F-22 in BVR fight.

Goodbye.

The book covers only to FY-13 for F-18E/F procurement.

The F-18 is inferior in BVR to the F-15, and stands no chance against a F-22.

[Tijuana]

The military spending isnt out of control, its the mandatory ordering of shit the military doesnt need, the scrapping of what it does need is wrong. Iv seen 2 different uniform patterns introduced for the us army in the past 10 years alone. The a10 is being scrapped despite it being one of the best attack planes ever produced, tanks keep getting ordered despite generals saying we dont need anymore. The militarys are still issued with m16/m4 M9 m249 despite all of those needing to be replaced some 10 years ago.

But, isn't it the generals who say the A-10 no longer has a viable role? Is it not Congress that keeps insisting we keep the program alive?

- - - Updated - - -

The book covers only to FY-13 for F-18E/F procurement.

The F-18 is inferior in BVR to the F-15, and stands no chance against a F-22.

Is there anything that stands a chance against a F-22? It was my understanding it could take on 10 F-15s at once, and the F-15 has never lost a dog fight.

[Kellhound]

The F22 is already faster, carries a larger armament, and is more maneuverable than the F35 with none of the bugs that plague the F35. On top of that it only cost us 66 billion to develop it. This is a scam.

Bottom line is the F35 is a money pit and its not even done yet while we have a better stealth fighter already. Yes we lost 1.5 trillion but it could cost another trillion by the time its finished.

The F-22 is more expensive to procure and more expensive to operate, and while we should have purchased enough for a 1:1 replacement of out F-15Cs, it is not correct to replace our F-16s with F-22s.

The $1.5 trillion number is for the lifetime cost of the program (R&D, procurement, and 50 years of operations).

- - - Updated - - -

It's not even close to ready.

https://www.wired.com/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

Quote from someone who's actually flown one: “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time”

The blind spot is handled by sensor fusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Marines could use more Super Hornets as their Hornet fleet is literally falling apart mid-air and B variant is behind schedule and won't be introduced en masse for at least 5 more years.

USN also needs more Growlers and Super Hornets BUT they will get them anyway.

However even the most advanced F-15 can't possibly compete with armed and combat ready F-35.

The most advanced F-15 is the F-15SE, which has stealth aspects.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe he'll give the contract to the Russian Aircraft Corporation. Then the USAF would be flying MiGs (and hell would have frozen over?) :P

MiGs are shit these days. Russia buys them just to keep them afloat.

[Stormspellz]

Deserves a re-post of this, which I started a thread about a week or so ago



Somebody dumps 869 shares, worth roughly roughly $25 Million, in Lockheed Martin mere minutes before Trump takes to twitter? Somehow, I don't think that is a coincidence.

all hail our con man in chief.

[Gib Lover]

Wew, a lot of people in here aren't familiar with the term "sunken cost fallacy"

[Merie]

Relevant: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/com...ndous/dbixlo6/

It's a reply from a pilot about why the F-35 shouldn't be scrapped and that Trump trying to stick his nose in where it isn't needed just does more harm than good.

Poppycock. Trump is very smart. He's smarter on military matters than our own generals.

[Tijuana]

Deserves a re-post of this, which I started a thread about a week or so ago



Somebody dumps 869 shares, worth roughly roughly $25 Million, in Lockheed Martin mere minutes before Trump takes to twitter? Somehow, I don't think that is a coincidence.

Trump doesn't have any stocks, if you believe his claim. He divested himself of all of them over the past year, out of some sort of vaguely explained fear.

Also, just because YOU don't have info about Trumps taxes or finances, doesn't mean Uncle Sam doesn't. If your tin foil claim is true, the SEC would nail him in about 10 seconds, which I'm sure they would love to do, since they are New Yorkers and likely Liberals.

Lastly, unless you are claiming he shorted the stock, the movement is in in the wrong direction. You don't sell a stock just before it goes down, when it's about to go down from your own actions. You would do something like this to buy it cheap, not sell it high. Just sayin...

[Stormspellz]

Trump doesn't have any stocks, if you believe his claim. He divested himself of all of them over the past year, out of some sort of vaguely explained fear.

Also, just because YOU don't have info about Trumps taxes or finances, doesn't mean Uncle Sam doesn't. If your tin foil claim is true, the SEC would nail him in about 10 seconds, which I'm sure they would love to do, since they are New Yorkers and likely Liberals.

or you know, someone closer to Trump, and proving Trump gave someone an inside tip is far more difficult to prove.