*** Top Gun 2 “Maverick” *** thread

[AgEngDawg]

Your a pretty good poster so I'm not flaming you. The very line you bring up actually was accurate for the F14. The Phoenix missile was the only Mach 5 capable air to air missile in the world with 100 nautical mile range for nearly 15 years. They could fire the damn thing from far away and Russians would've been toast. Not to mention that the Phoenix could maneuver better than all but the late in F14 life introduced vectored thrust capable SUs could.

Mig 25? Toast. Talk about an unmaneuverable bird. Mig 31? Same. Mig 29? Some say similar maneuverability to our f16? Toast against a Phoenix. God forbid we send two Phoenix missiles per adversary aircraft. Older Mig and SU24s? Toast. The F14s would've faired fine in most of those situations. Especially out over the ocean where the Russians would have to travel farther to engage.

John Boyd is a legend though.

That is a lot of faith in the Phoenix missile with a fat bird with one too many engines and one too many pilots.

 

[Teddy Jack]

Alright so back to Top Gun 2. Anything new you can share OP?

 

[RJ2kWJ]

Alright so back to Top Gun 2. Anything new you can share OP?

Not yet. A promise is a promise. I really can’t wait to fully discuss it. This thread might end up being 200 pages long haha.

 

[Teddy Jack]

Not yet. A promise is a promise. I really can’t wait to fully discuss it. This thread might end up being 200 pages long haha.

 

[Ttuplm05]

Not yet. A promise is a promise. I really can’t wait to fully discuss it. This thread might end up being 200 pages long haha.

Whats the fastest your friend has ever flown?

 

[RJ2kWJ]

Whats the fastest your friend has ever flown?

I’ll ask him. Was never really a topic. Whenever we talk it’s typically about skydiving or firearms or food or sports.

 

[Teddy Jack]

Whats the fastest your friend has ever flown?

I’m gonna say Mach 2 with his hair on fire.

 

[RJ2kWJ]

I’m gonna say Mach 2 with his hair on fire.

In a convertible jet.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Your a pretty good poster so I'm not flaming you. The very line you bring up actually was accurate for the F14. The Phoenix missile was the only Mach 5 capable air to air missile in the world with 100 nautical mile range for nearly 15 years. They could fire the damn thing from far away and Russians would've been toast. Not to mention that the Phoenix could maneuver better than all but the late in F14 life introduced vectored thrust capable SUs could.

Mig 25? Toast. Talk about an unmaneuverable bird. Mig 31? Same. Mig 29? Some say similar maneuverability to our f16? Toast against a Phoenix. God forbid we send two Phoenix missiles per adversary aircraft. Older Mig and SU24s? Toast. The F14s would've faired fine in most of those situations. Especially out over the ocean where the Russians would have to travel farther to engage.

John Boyd is a legend though.

From Wiki, but it fits. We have tried this before. The AF goes against Boyd at it's detriment:

"Missileers"[edit]​

Project Forecast, a 1963 Air Force study, attempted to identify future weapons trends and "certain high-priority areas for research and development (R&D), recommendations based on the greatest potential payoff for the future."[2] The report strongly suggested that future air combat would be carried out primarily by long-range missile fire. Future "fighters" would be designed primarily for long range, high speed, and equipped with extremely large radar systems in order to detect and engage opposing fighters at beyond visual range (BVR). This made them much more like interceptors than classic fighter designs, and led to increasingly heavier and more technologically sophisticated designs – and thus costlier.

The US Navy had long ago come to similar conclusions, and had been designing a series of aircraft dedicated to this role. Notable among these was the well named Douglas F6D Missileer, a long endurance but slow and unmaneuverable design equipped with very powerful missiles and radar for fleet defense. The US Air Force had similar designs, but these had been dedicated to the interceptor role, where the large size of its targets allowed reasonable radar performance. As radar equipment improved, in particular the introduction of Doppler radar systems, fighters gained similar range performance against smaller targets. By the early 1960s, even before the release of Forecast, both the Air Force and Navy expected to use the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark (then still in development as the TFX) and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II for their long- and medium-range needs. The perception of a declining need for close-in "dogfighting" capabilities resulted in the original decision to not install internal cannons in the Phantom.[1][3]

Combat experience and E-M theory[edit]​

However, real-world experience in the Vietnam War revealed some shortcomings in American fighter capabilities, as early generation Soviet jet fighters proved to be more of a challenge than expected for U.S. designs. Although U.S. pilots had achieved favorable kill-to-loss ratios, combat had revealed that air-to-air missiles (AAM) of this era were significantly less reliable than anticipated. Furthermore, the rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Under these conditions, combat invariably closed to short ranges where maneuverability and short-range air-to-air weapons became critical, even for dedicated interceptors like the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger.[3][4]

Based on his experiences in the Korean War and as a fighter tactics instructor, in the early 1960s Colonel John Boyd and mathematician Thomas Christie developed the Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory of the value of aircraft specific energy maintenance as an advantage in fighter combat. Maneuverability was the means of getting “inside” an adversary’s decision-making cycle, a process Boyd called the "OODA" loop (from "Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action"). This approach emphasized an aircraft design capable of “fast transients” – quick changes in speed, altitude, and direction. A fighter that is superior in its ability to gain or lose energy while out-turning an opponent can initiate and control any engagement opportunity; a fast transient capability allows the pilot to stay inside a hard-turning opponent when on the offensive or to force an overshoot of an opponent when on the defensive.

These parameters called for a small, lightweight aircraft – which would minimize drag and increase the thrust-to-weight ratio – but a larger, higher-lift wing to minimize wing loading – which tends to reduce top speed while increasing payload, and can lower range (which can be compensated for by increased fuel in the larger wing).[5][6]

 

[Teddy Jack]

From Wiki, but it fits. We have tried this before. The AF goes against Boyd at it's detriment:

"Missileers"[edit]​

Project Forecast, a 1963 Air Force study, attempted to identify future weapons trends and "certain high-priority areas for research and development (R&D), recommendations based on the greatest potential payoff for the future."[2] The report strongly suggested that future air combat would be carried out primarily by long-range missile fire. Future "fighters" would be designed primarily for long range, high speed, and equipped with extremely large radar systems in order to detect and engage opposing fighters at beyond visual range (BVR). This made them much more like interceptors than classic fighter designs, and led to increasingly heavier and more technologically sophisticated designs – and thus costlier.

The US Navy had long ago come to similar conclusions, and had been designing a series of aircraft dedicated to this role. Notable among these was the well named Douglas F6D Missileer, a long endurance but slow and unmaneuverable design equipped with very powerful missiles and radar for fleet defense. The US Air Force had similar designs, but these had been dedicated to the interceptor role, where the large size of its targets allowed reasonable radar performance. As radar equipment improved, in particular the introduction of Doppler radar systems, fighters gained similar range performance against smaller targets. By the early 1960s, even before the release of Forecast, both the Air Force and Navy expected to use the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark (then still in development as the TFX) and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II for their long- and medium-range needs. The perception of a declining need for close-in "dogfighting" capabilities resulted in the original decision to not install internal cannons in the Phantom.[1][3]

Combat experience and E-M theory[edit]​

However, real-world experience in the Vietnam War revealed some shortcomings in American fighter capabilities, as early generation Soviet jet fighters proved to be more of a challenge than expected for U.S. designs. Although U.S. pilots had achieved favorable kill-to-loss ratios, combat had revealed that air-to-air missiles (AAM) of this era were significantly less reliable than anticipated. Furthermore, the rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Under these conditions, combat invariably closed to short ranges where maneuverability and short-range air-to-air weapons became critical, even for dedicated interceptors like the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger.[3][4]

Based on his experiences in the Korean War and as a fighter tactics instructor, in the early 1960s Colonel John Boyd and mathematician Thomas Christie developed the Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory of the value of aircraft specific energy maintenance as an advantage in fighter combat. Maneuverability was the means of getting “inside” an adversary’s decision-making cycle, a process Boyd called the "OODA" loop (from "Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action"). This approach emphasized an aircraft design capable of “fast transients” – quick changes in speed, altitude, and direction. A fighter that is superior in its ability to gain or lose energy while out-turning an opponent can initiate and control any engagement opportunity; a fast transient capability allows the pilot to stay inside a hard-turning opponent when on the offensive or to force an overshoot of an opponent when on the defensive.

These parameters called for a small, lightweight aircraft – which would minimize drag and increase the thrust-to-weight ratio – but a larger, higher-lift wing to minimize wing loading – which tends to reduce top speed while increasing payload, and can lower range (which can be compensated for by increased fuel in the larger wing).[5][6]

You’re material is from the 1960s. We have never “tried this before” because we’ve never had this kind of technology before.

your whole basis of argument is based on material from a Vietnam war era. Missiles aren’t the same. Jets aren’t the same. Nothing is the same.

 

[AgEngDawg]

You’re material is from the 1960s. We have never “tried this before” because we’ve never had this kind of technology before.

your whole basis of argument is based on material from a Vietnam war era. Missiles aren’t the same. Jets aren’t the same. Nothing is the same.

There is a FUNDAMENTAL trend in history that technology never works out as well as you think it will. Especially when an enemy makes moves also.

You think they are just going to let the plan work as intended? The enemy gets a vote too. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.

You ignore that fundamental trend in history at your peril.

In my opinion, I do not think China will comply with your request.

 

[America 1st]

You’re material is from the 1960s. We have never “tried this before” because we’ve never had this kind of technology before.

your whole basis of argument is based on material from a Vietnam war era. Missiles aren’t the same. Jets aren’t the same. Nothing is the same.

Pussy ass CiC still applies but yup.

 

[America 1st]

There is a FUNDAMENTAL trend in history that technology never works out as well as you think it will. Especially when an enemy makes moves also.

You think they are just going to let the plan work as intended? The enemy gets a vote too. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.

You ignore that fundamental trend in history at your peril.

In my opinion, I do not think China will comply with your request.

Historically speaking this is true but right now the US is shooting itself in the foot with cost per flight hour and deployable assets as much or more than any doctrine relating to EM & OODA.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Historically speaking this is true but right now the US is shooting itself in the foot with cost per flight hour and deployable assets as much or more than any doctrine relating to EM & OODA.

Agree, but one of the principles of light weight fighter program was decrease in cost of production and maintenance.

The more complex you make these systems, like the F-35, the more costly they are.

We were able to afford a sea of F-16s versus much less F-15s and goodness gracious at the cost of the F-35.

Sometimes simpler and cheaper is better.

The Soviet T-34s were inferior in quality the the German Tiger Tanks. However, the Soviets could afford to build a sea of T-34s, while the Germans could not with the Tiger tank.

Quantity has a quality all of it's own.

 

[America 1st]

Agree, but one of the principles of light weight fighter program was decrease in cost of production and maintenance.

The more complex you make these systems, like the F-35, the more costly they are.

We were able to afford a sea of F-16s versus much less F-15s and goodness gracious at the cost of the F-35.

Sometimes simpler and cheaper is better.

The Soviet T-34s were inferior in quality the the German Tiger Tanks. However, the Soviets could afford to build a sea of T-34s, while the Germans could not with the Tiger tank.

Quantity has a quality all of it's own.

Spot on.

There is a reason the US is worried about swarm attacks and has been developing lasers to counter for the last 30 years.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Spot on.

There is a reason the US is worried about swarm attacks and has been developing lasers to counter for the last 30 years.

Yep.

Ripping F-35 costs, House Armed Services chairman looks to ‘cut our losses’

When Rep. Adam Smith thinks about the F-35, he thinks about “failure on a massive freaking scale."

www.defensenews.com

This warms my heart:

"Air Force officials said this month they were exploring less expensive options, including buying new F-16s from Lockheed"

That is how freaking good the F-16 was. Just get a more powerful engine for the F-16 and roll with it.

 

[Teddy Jack]

Yep.

Ripping F-35 costs, House Armed Services chairman looks to ‘cut our losses’

When Rep. Adam Smith thinks about the F-35, he thinks about “failure on a massive freaking scale."

www.defensenews.com

This warms my heart:

"Air Force officials said this month they were exploring less expensive options, including buying new F-16s from Lockheed"

That is how freaking good the F-16 was. Just get a more powerful engine for the F-16 and roll with it.

F-15 was and is a much better fighter than the F-16. I’m biased though. Still better.

neither is better than the F-22 or F-35. They are expensive. New programs with new technology often have lots of cost overruns and problems. Im not opposed to having more F-16s and/or F-15s though. If we have it in the budget.

 

[AgEngDawg]

F-15 was and is a much better fighter than the F-16. I’m biased though. Still better.

neither is better than the F-22 or F-35. They are expensive. New programs with new technology often have lots of cost overruns and problems. Im not opposed to having more F-16s and/or F-15s though. If we have it in the budget.

F-16 was better than the F-15. It was also much, much cheaper. Look at how many F-16s we bought versus F-15s.

 

[Teddy Jack]

F-16 was better than the F-15. It was also much, much cheaper. Look at how many F-16s we bought versus F-15s.

Yeah ok bro. The number we bought has nothing to do with how good one is versus the other. Again, I’ll take my source who’s been up against F-16s any day. He gave them their dues as being great jets, but he’d take the eagle any day a week and twice on Sunday.

 

[America 1st]

I say we just roll all the foreign aid into new F22s for a couple years then keep that same amount of rolling each year to fly them.

Fuck anyone in the way.

 

[America 1st]

 

[America 1st]

 

[America 1st]

 

[America 1st]

 

[America 1st]

 

[AgEngDawg]

Colonel John Fucking Boyd:

"Astonishingly, the F-35 cannot dogfight, the crux of any fighter jet. According to test pilots, the F-35 is “substantially inferior” to the 40-year-old F-15 fighter jet in mock air battles. The F-35 could not turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane or dodge enemy gunfire. Similarly, the F-35 struggled to get a clean shot at a 1980s-vintage F-16. The older aircraft easily maneuvered behind the F-35 for a clear shot, even sneaking up on the “stealth” jet. Despite the F-35s vaunted abilities, it was blown out of the sky in multiple tests."

The F-35 tells everything that’s broken in the Pentagon

We do not need more exquisite weapon systems, such as the F-35, that are costly and useless in modern war.

thehill.com

Also, this in not good:

"Those who live by technology die by it too. Unsurprisingly, the F-35’s 8 million lines of code are buggy, as are the 24 million lines running the aircraft’s maintenance and logistics software on the ground. Sometimes pilots have to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete while in flight to reboot the multimillion-dollar radar. The F-35 computer code, government auditors say, is “as complicated as anything on earth.” What can be coded can also be hacked, another vulnerability for the F-35."

 

[AgEngDawg]

Colonel John Fucking Boyd:

"Astonishingly, the F-35 cannot dogfight, the crux of any fighter jet. According to test pilots, the F-35 is “substantially inferior” to the 40-year-old F-15 fighter jet in mock air battles. The F-35 could not turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane or dodge enemy gunfire. Similarly, the F-35 struggled to get a clean shot at a 1980s-vintage F-16. The older aircraft easily maneuvered behind the F-35 for a clear shot, even sneaking up on the “stealth” jet. Despite the F-35s vaunted abilities, it was blown out of the sky in multiple tests."

The F-35 tells everything that’s broken in the Pentagon

We do not need more exquisite weapon systems, such as the F-35, that are costly and useless in modern war.

thehill.com

Also, this in not good:

"Those who live by technology die by it too. Unsurprisingly, the F-35’s 8 million lines of code are buggy, as are the 24 million lines running the aircraft’s maintenance and logistics software on the ground. Sometimes pilots have to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete while in flight to reboot the multimillion-dollar radar. The F-35 computer code, government auditors say, is “as complicated as anything on earth.” What can be coded can also be hacked, another vulnerability for the F-35."

Colonel John Boyd is still hosing "Blue Suiter" Generals decades after he died. Daggum!!!

This shows what difference one honest man can make.

Well...to be fair, Navy and Marine Generals are also getting hosed in this also.

 

[Teddy Jack]

Colonel John Fucking Boyd:

"Astonishingly, the F-35 cannot dogfight, the crux of any fighter jet. According to test pilots, the F-35 is “substantially inferior” to the 40-year-old F-15 fighter jet in mock air battles. The F-35 could not turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane or dodge enemy gunfire. Similarly, the F-35 struggled to get a clean shot at a 1980s-vintage F-16. The older aircraft easily maneuvered behind the F-35 for a clear shot, even sneaking up on the “stealth” jet. Despite the F-35s vaunted abilities, it was blown out of the sky in multiple tests."

The F-35 tells everything that’s broken in the Pentagon

We do not need more exquisite weapon systems, such as the F-35, that are costly and useless in modern war.

thehill.com

Also, this in not good:

"Those who live by technology die by it too. Unsurprisingly, the F-35’s 8 million lines of code are buggy, as are the 24 million lines running the aircraft’s maintenance and logistics software on the ground. Sometimes pilots have to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete while in flight to reboot the multimillion-dollar radar. The F-35 computer code, government auditors say, is “as complicated as anything on earth.” What can be coded can also be hacked, another vulnerability for the F-35."

Stop. Just stop. They run through several different scenarios with these fighting situations.

the bottom line is the raptor and lightening will kill anything and everything long before the enemy knows they are there. Of course they will train for dog fighting situations and the F22 had similar “results” as your article.

I really wonder about these though. I’ve seen both fly and there is nothing like the angle of attack from the F22. It can change directions on a dime with vector thrusting. No eagle or falcon can do that.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Stop. Just stop. They run through several different scenarios with these fighting situations.

the bottom line is the raptor and lightening will kill anything and everything long before the enemy knows they are there. Of course they will train for dog fighting situations and the F22 had similar “results” as your article.

I really wonder about these though. I’ve seen both fly and there is nothing like the angle of attack from the F22. It can change directions on a dime with vector thrusting. No eagle or falcon can do that.

Keep believing that. I hope we never get into a war where we find out that is just arrogance and 100% wrong. We have long been too dependent on our technology and have found out to our detriment that it was all hubris.

We thought we were going to use helicopters to completely annihilate the VC during Vietnam. Wrong. We thought we could seed the Ho Chi Minh trail with sensors and annihilate formation on the trail. Wrong.

We thought we could pacify the insurgency without the deep Counterinsurgency tactics that Patreaus and his reformers brought. Wrong.

How many fucking times have we went into a war arrogantly believing our technology would protect us?

The enemy gets a vote also. They are not just going to let you shoot their planes out of the air from far off. Adjustments will be made.

They have technology also.

Also, I hate to tell people this. However, the Chinese have technology to defeat our "stealth" tech. They helped the Serbs shoot down a F-117A way back in 1999. Not even this century.

How much progress you think they have made since then?

 

[Teddy Jack]

Keep believing that. I hope we never get into a war where we find out that is just arrogance and 100% wrong. We have long been too dependent on our technology and have found out to our detriment that it was all hubris.

We thought we were going to use helicopters to completely annihilate the VC during Vietnam. Wrong. We thought we could seed the Ho Chi Minh trail with sensors and annihilate formation on the trail. Wrong.

We thought we could pacify the insurgency without the deep Counterinsurgency tactics that Patreaus and his reformers brought. Wrong.

How many fucking times have we went into a war arrogantly believing our technology would protect us?

The enemy gets a vote also. They are not just going to let you shoot their planes out of the air from far off. Adjustments will be made.

They have technology also.

Also, I hate to tell people this. However, the Chinese have technology to defeat our "stealth" tech. They helped the Serbs shoot down a F-117A way back in 1999. Not even this century.

How much progress you think they have made since then?

Our technology decimated the infrastructure in Iraq in two wars with them.

The Chinese and others want our technology precisely because it’s so good.

how much progress in technology have we made since 1999? Good god dude. You’ve outed yourself again as having no clue.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Our technology decimated the infrastructure in Iraq in two wars with them.

The Chinese and others want our technology precisely because it’s so good.

how much progress in technology have we made since 1999? Good god dude. You’ve outed yourself again as having no clue.

I am willing to bet that things will not work out how you think. I think that has a pretty good track record in human history.

With regard to the first Iraq war, China initiated an intense study of that war and our technology. they started back in 1992. I think they are ready to defeat our technology.

With regards to the second Iraq war, the insurgents did pretty damn good against us with low tech IEDs.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Our technology decimated the infrastructure in Iraq in two wars with them.

The Chinese and others want our technology precisely because it’s so good.

how much progress in technology have we made since 1999? Good god dude. You’ve outed yourself again as having no clue.

I think what you are missing here is that China has scientists and engineers also. They are also better at keeping secrets.

 

[America 1st]

 

[RJ2kWJ]

Almost as bad ass as Tom Brady’s cock.

 

[America 1st]

Almost as bad ass as Tom Brady’s cock.

Spoiler

 

[TJHall1]

 

[AgEngDawg]

HASC Cites ‘Enormous Concern’ About F-35; Readiness Chair Suggests Buy Cutback | Air & Space Forces Magazine

HASC is concerned about the F-35’s sustainment, and suggested Congress may cut back on purchases of the jet to let the sustainment enterprise catch up.

www.airforcemag.com

The House Armed Services Committee has “enormous concern” about the F-35 fighter’s sustainment, and suggested Congress may cut back on purchases of the jet to let the sustainment enterprise catch up, Readiness subcommittee chair Rep. John Garamendi (R-Calif.) said March 19.

Garamendi, near the end of a hearing on the military’s organic maintenance capability, said the “huge problem” with the F-35 is, “we buy more planes [but] we’re not able to maintain the older ones, so the more we buy, the worse the overall performance has been. That is going to stop.” He did not elaborate about whether he intends to try to restrain F-35 purchases in the upcoming fiscal 2022 budget.

“The entire F-35 system is of enormous concern to the committee,” Garamendi said, noting that HASC chair Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) “weighed in on this in a very big and important way, this last week.” Smith complained about assorted issues with the F-35, calling it a “rathole,” but allowing that it may not be an expendable program.

The panel chairman also told service sustainment chiefs, including Air Force Sustainment Center Commander Lt. Gen. Donald E. “Gene” Kirkland, that “there is a very deep concern in the committee about the F-35 overall,” especially the possibility that key parts of the jet are manufactured in China, and therefore may in some way be compromised. This sentiment was also voiced by congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who asked panelists if they knew of any F-35 parts made in China. The service witnesses promised to get back to her, but Navy Vice Adm. Dean Peters, commander of Naval Air Systems Command, offered that there likely are.

“We track the main components very closely, and I don’t know of any main components that come from China,” Peters said. However, “as you go down the supply chain, at the third or fourth tier, it’s very likely that there are some electronic parts that come from China.”

Garamendi responded that “we don’t have an answer” about how to fix the problem. The issue of Chinese content in the F-35—both parts and software—was one of great colloquy in a strategic arms hearing earlier in the week.

In his opening remarks, Garamendi voiced his concern that the services aren’t properly resourced to keep sustaining older systems, even as preparations are made for new ones. He’s worried about “overly-optimistic timelines” for introducing new platforms, and not having infrastructure in place to keep old ones going until the new ones arrive. At the same time, he said he’s frustrated that the services “pay a premium for old technology that is less capable, not fuel-efficient, dependent on a limited network of suppliers, and reliant on obsolete manufacturing processes.”

He urged the witnesses to move out smartly in adopting new sustainment technologies, such as 3-D printing, the use of “big data” and predictive maintenance. He also urged them to attract a new cohort of workers for the depots.

“We must ensure we can hire and train the next generation in a timely fashion,” he said. Kirkland replied that the Air Force has numerous intern, STEM, and scholarship programs with schools in the areas around its major depots to attract new line workers. The average age of employees in Air Logistics Centers is 44.5 years, he noted.

Garamendi also said that he’d observed a lot of “blue tarps, inside” depot buildings, presumably there to block rain. He told the witnesses he wants to know what kind of repairs and investments are needed to get the logistics infrastructure up to par, even if those requirements don’t make it into the President’s Budget. “There are ways … to convey” that information, he told the witnesses. “I want the facilities modernized. I’m here to fight for you.”

Addressing himself to Kirkland, Garamendi said, “The Air Force is going to have a large number of new platforms, extremely sophisticated platforms,” in the coming years, some of which are “still classified.” The committee needs to know, he said, “What are your maintenance demands for those new platforms,” so Congress can help prepare the service to care for them? He wants the Air Force to provide an integrated maintenance plan within the next three or four months.

“We don’t want to have another F-35 fiasco,” Garamendi asserted.

 

[America 1st]

HASC Cites ‘Enormous Concern’ About F-35; Readiness Chair Suggests Buy Cutback | Air & Space Forces Magazine

HASC is concerned about the F-35’s sustainment, and suggested Congress may cut back on purchases of the jet to let the sustainment enterprise catch up.

www.airforcemag.com

The House Armed Services Committee has “enormous concern” about the F-35 fighter’s sustainment, and suggested Congress may cut back on purchases of the jet to let the sustainment enterprise catch up, Readiness subcommittee chair Rep. John Garamendi (R-Calif.) said March 19.

Garamendi, near the end of a hearing on the military’s organic maintenance capability, said the “huge problem” with the F-35 is, “we buy more planes [but] we’re not able to maintain the older ones, so the more we buy, the worse the overall performance has been. That is going to stop.” He did not elaborate about whether he intends to try to restrain F-35 purchases in the upcoming fiscal 2022 budget.

“The entire F-35 system is of enormous concern to the committee,” Garamendi said, noting that HASC chair Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) “weighed in on this in a very big and important way, this last week.” Smith complained about assorted issues with the F-35, calling it a “rathole,” but allowing that it may not be an expendable program.

The panel chairman also told service sustainment chiefs, including Air Force Sustainment Center Commander Lt. Gen. Donald E. “Gene” Kirkland, that “there is a very deep concern in the committee about the F-35 overall,” especially the possibility that key parts of the jet are manufactured in China, and therefore may in some way be compromised. This sentiment was also voiced by congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who asked panelists if they knew of any F-35 parts made in China. The service witnesses promised to get back to her, but Navy Vice Adm. Dean Peters, commander of Naval Air Systems Command, offered that there likely are.

“We track the main components very closely, and I don’t know of any main components that come from China,” Peters said. However, “as you go down the supply chain, at the third or fourth tier, it’s very likely that there are some electronic parts that come from China.”

Garamendi responded that “we don’t have an answer” about how to fix the problem. The issue of Chinese content in the F-35—both parts and software—was one of great colloquy in a strategic arms hearing earlier in the week.

In his opening remarks, Garamendi voiced his concern that the services aren’t properly resourced to keep sustaining older systems, even as preparations are made for new ones. He’s worried about “overly-optimistic timelines” for introducing new platforms, and not having infrastructure in place to keep old ones going until the new ones arrive. At the same time, he said he’s frustrated that the services “pay a premium for old technology that is less capable, not fuel-efficient, dependent on a limited network of suppliers, and reliant on obsolete manufacturing processes.”

He urged the witnesses to move out smartly in adopting new sustainment technologies, such as 3-D printing, the use of “big data” and predictive maintenance. He also urged them to attract a new cohort of workers for the depots.

“We must ensure we can hire and train the next generation in a timely fashion,” he said. Kirkland replied that the Air Force has numerous intern, STEM, and scholarship programs with schools in the areas around its major depots to attract new line workers. The average age of employees in Air Logistics Centers is 44.5 years, he noted.

Garamendi also said that he’d observed a lot of “blue tarps, inside” depot buildings, presumably there to block rain. He told the witnesses he wants to know what kind of repairs and investments are needed to get the logistics infrastructure up to par, even if those requirements don’t make it into the President’s Budget. “There are ways … to convey” that information, he told the witnesses. “I want the facilities modernized. I’m here to fight for you.”

Addressing himself to Kirkland, Garamendi said, “The Air Force is going to have a large number of new platforms, extremely sophisticated platforms,” in the coming years, some of which are “still classified.” The committee needs to know, he said, “What are your maintenance demands for those new platforms,” so Congress can help prepare the service to care for them? He wants the Air Force to provide an integrated maintenance plan within the next three or four months.

“We don’t want to have another F-35 fiasco,” Garamendi asserted.

I'd be shocked if they slow down 35 procurement.

More likely they invest heavily in the infrastructure, across various platforms, to remedy these issues.

 

[AgEngDawg]

I'd be shocked if they slow down 35 procurement.

More likely they invest heavily in the infrastructure, across various platforms, to remedy these issues.

It is concerning that some of the electronics are made in China. That is literally the plot of a book. China supplies faulty microchips for F-35s and they all fail when China invades Hawaii. This is in the book "The Ghost Fleet".

 

[America 1st]

It is concerning that some of the electronics are made in China. That is literally the plot of a book. China supplies faulty microchips for F-35s and they all fail when China invades Hawaii. This is in the book "The Ghost Fleet".

At least the CiC doesn't tweet the truth anymore