The F-35's service record thus far has been pretty good. It's kept Israel relatively unscathed from attacks on all sides. Is it what it was hoped to be? No, but it's far from the boondoggle portrayed here. BTW, I'm a Sweetman fan going way back.
The Israel F-35s are an interesting element. They are seeing a lot of use but in a air dominant position. I'm sure there are many nations watching them very closely.
Well IAF has certainly spread the cheeks of Iranian and Syrian airspace and penetrated it. Repeateadly. Despite S-300's, SA-11's, and few S-400's. Perhaps Russians would not shoot their S400 at IAF F-35I's , but if they could track it, they would pass that information on to Syrians and Iranians.
The Center for Strategic Studies war game exercise published recently that looked at a China-Taiwan scenario discounted 5th gen fighters in the conflict as largely irrelevant. Their impact is short lived at best in that any air to air would last a couple of days at most before almost all a/c are destroyed on the ground or used up in initial combat.
@@damcasterspod For who? Civilian taxpayer? Considering it is political decsision and lets be real this should be political not shareholders' interest, it is a shot in your own foot.
The same Bill Sweetman who was suspended by Aviation Week from covering the F-35 due to his lack of objectivity as a reporter. Sweetman announced he was quitting journalism back in 2016. Like a lot of other junkies he just can't get that monkey off of his back.
When the USA has a military requirement they invite competitors to submit designs which are then evaluated to find the winner. That market competition should result in a good product for a good price huh? Not always. A frontline fighter has a long service life if it is chosen to make up the bulk of an air force. That often means decades of production, upgrade blocks, and spare parts etc. The winning bid effectively secures a monopoly over most of that for the entire service life of the product. Monopoly prices etc. There is also so called pork barrel spending and other political influences on the process. There's also the theory going around that western military products do not exist to fulfill military functions as much as they exist to line shareholder pockets. Whether or not they perform their military function well, they definitely line those pockets. That risks choice being made for business reasons, rather than for making sure the product can do its job.
well it might’ve been a train wreck of a program development, but if the war in Ukraine has shown something is that non stealth aircraft cannot operate under the current level of air defences, russians can’t penetrate Ukranian airspace, UAF has to fly nap of the earth so they don’t get shot and nobody has air superiority, if they had something like the F-35 they would, in other words if you don’t have stealth you don’t have a air force
That is certainly the arguement but neither Ukraine nor Russian have been operating SEAD/DEAD to the level anyone expected. The F-35 deployment to Japan from the SEAD role instead of the F-16 Wild Weasles will provide very interesting data for the USAF.
It is a very relevant question. Does the F-35 program mean that the "next aircraft" is delayed until the F-35 is being produced in an overall more capible form? Highly likely, so how long does that take? Or does that mean that more money will need to be found to fund a new program while there isn't an end in sight for the F-35? I think the aircraft will be competent over the next five years, but what happens in those years is going to be the kicker.
The F-35 is a damn impressive aircraft. But it's been found that production and operational costs are outrageous. We also know that teaming 5th and 4th generation aircraft has powerful synergy that rivals sole 5th gen ops. I'd rather we have 20-30% advanced combat aircraft and the rest capable, modern non-stealth airframes.
Really? Exactly where's that information is found. Everything I have seen is that the F35 is half as much per flight hr as a block 50 F16. The new block 70/72 F16 is 40 million more per aircraft than the F35.
@@jamesmcd71 I had put a link up for the late 2022 GAO report that showed a $15k/hr operating cost difference between the F-35 and F-16, but I don't see it posted.
@PrimarchX that's probably correct. As things progress, it changes. The # expense of both the F35 and the F22 was maintaining the coating. Up until late 23, it took 250 people over a month to strip and recoat each aircraft. Now it's all done by robots in 5 days. This alone dropped the operating costs in half. The Navy is testing a new paint that is supposed to last 2 to 3 years at sea. If this works, the F35 will be the cheapest aircraft to maintain in the history of aircraft. My point is that all new technology is extremely expensive in the beginning. If Ford only make 10k vehicles every year, they would be 100s of millions each. As we learned in the 20s, the more you produce, the less each costs. And as technology advances, the less expensive it gets.
@@jamesmcd71 I recognize that costs drop as technology matures. Interesting to hear about the robot coating method! My point isn't anti-F-35, it's more that not EVERY airframe needs those capabilities for an air force to be deadly. Maybe the introduction of loyal wingmen drones will increase lethality for lower overall operating costs? I'd like to believe your prediction that the F-35 may become the most economical aircraft to operate of all time. But I've been watching this program from the beginning, back when JSF was supposed to be a cost-effective solution leveraging COTS components with a moderate LO signature. Nothing about this program has been low cost. But that's what vendors tell you to get you to sign the contract... :)
US Military procurement is based on which US state the contractor and sub contractors are based in, and if it will translate into winning votes at the next election. Not on the the best option as for example the F-22 v F-23 which was political decision and not based on the thrust vectoring nozels of the f-22 which offer marginal benefit as we are told constantly when the Russian sukhoi's display its use.
If you are still thinking of the F-35 as a vulnerable less than stellar maneuvering dogfighter, then you need to join 2024 and get yourself spun up on modern electronics. For a start, look at 3D IR projection.
The aircraft is becoming what it was intended to be, but still has massive capability gaps. Block 4 is where deployed aircraft should be, but the majority are not and as such do not have the capability you mention. Plus, what comes next for the US when there is no money? That is the crux of Bill's concern.
Anyone who starts by talking about how expensive the F35 shows there not talking about facts. The price for a new block 70 f16 is 121 million each , the new F15, while still very limited supply are 170 million each. The current block of F35s are 85 million each. No matter what math you use, the F35 is less expensive to buy, own, and operate than new versions of old platforms.
Both of those costs for the F-15 and F-16 are impacted by resuming production for lines that had been shut, which will alway see a hike in price for iniatl deliveries. What you are missing is that the USAF is forced to return to 50 year old aircraft because the new one has sucked up all the funding. You have to look beyond unit cost when doing your maths.
@damcasterspod No. The F16 has never ended production. And the Saudi government paid 100% of the bill to restart the F15 production. The F16 Block 70/72 upgrades were funded by India and production is in India and South Carolina. This makes me wonder if you have any basic knowledge of the things you talk about.
@damcasterspod look buddy. Just except the fact you need to know about an issue before you try to educate others on that issue. You might be coming at this in a genuine way and just not be properly educated. Or you intend to push lies and propaganda. Only you know the truth. But it appears that not stopping and checking after I called the facts to your attention makes me believe you're not concerned about the truth. As for your savings grace statement. Yes, it increases the costs for India with the block 70/72 F15 and Saudi with the F15 only. The US has no development expenses in restarting the F15. As I said, the F16 has never stopped production. As of now the US has no plans to buy any new Block 70/72 F16 ( I'm sure they will) the deal with India provides upgrades to Block 70 for all Block 50 or later existing F16s. I know all this is very unusual. The US hasn't thought about the taxpayers' money in over 50 years. The fact that all of these deals were put in place between 2016 and 2020 must be ignored due to mental illness. It's kinda like the new Airforce 1. It was on schedule and under budget. The only thing the media could complain about was how much the refrigerator cost. Then, just weeks after the election, Boeing says it's going to take an extra year or 2. Now Boeing said it can't even provide a schedule or budget.
OHHH OUR SWISS MIRAGE..WHEN WE WAS KIDS WE GO TO DÜBENDORF WITH OUR CYCLES TO WATCH ALL THE FIGHTERS IN DÜBENDORF.. F5" TIGERS", HAWKER " HUNTERS", AND THE KING... THE SWISS "MIRAGE III"... BEST TIMES !
Another person (hack) taking things out of context and spinning it to their liking. F-35 will end up being regarded an excellent aircraft(s) and worth every dollar.
His arguement is about the impact of the program and the aircraft still not being match fit. Block 4 is where it should be, but those aircarft are in the minority. While the aircraft may prove its worth, the cost may leave a capability gap going forward, which is Bill's concern. Bill has the experience give his assesment, so to call him a hack is harsh.
@@damcasterspod - if it walks like a hack, talks like a hack, and acts like a hack...it's a hack. The idea that R&D cost has to be folded into the production run of an aircraft is ludicrous. How many expensive R&D programs are done just to gain understanding and never lead to a production run, where does that cost get folded into? As for capability gap, I didn't hear anyone crying about it when the F-15, F-16, and F-18 started their creep into the ground attack area and other things. AND in response to your Block 4 argument, those that want to spend will upgrade to Block 4; that is if they aren't on the naughty list.
I agree with your analysis. Anytime you put the word "joint" into a project, it is doomed. No one plane can do the job for all 3 services. Too many compromises.
It is not me tackling it (despite reading much defence analysis on the subject and using it as case study for training Business Analysts for nearly a decade) but Bill, who is far more qualified to speak to the F-35 and the progam so far. To the degree he and his book are discussed on a recent Aviation Week podcast. Give it a go, I think it is an interesting conversation, especally the bits around the alternatives that are being discussed.
@@damcasterspodno one person is qualified, we each may contribute to a specific part and may be an expert in a particular area but nobody is an expert in every area. some interesting points were in this interview, thanks.
Wrong question to ask - what you should be asking is why the hell one airframe is expected to do so much? And why are politicians (who generally don't have a clue about REAL military requirements and/or capabilities) allowed to get away this kind of crap? This isn't the first time either - remember the F111 naval version fiasco?
@jackaubrey8614 That at least got us the F-14. But a F-16 Viper, AV-8B Harrier, FA-18C Hornet replacement, and F-22 compliment, was a clearly terrible idea. And of course- delayed, over budget, and not what was promised. I simply can't get excited seeing the -B model specifically.
@@jackaubrey8614 When politicians start designing aircraft (and ships) ... Look Out! Yeah the TFX/F-111 was a mess of a program. There was a funny cartoon that ran in AW&ST showing the F-111 as able to do every aircraft mission imaginable. There was a KF-111 Tanker and just about every other crazy variant. Probably just what Robert Strange McNamara (SECDEF) dreamed of.
So, Fat Amy is semi good against radar guided missiles BVR. But is so hot that even Chinese second gen, rear aspect heat seekers are going to be able to find this thing from the front aspect. Money well spent I say!!
@@bdub1934 @bdub1934 I'd rather the AF go the route of new build F-15C with the EX glass cockpit & radar, an F-15CX if you will. The EX like the E, is a bomb truck first. The EX will have one good turn in it and then will be in a low energy state from then on. Don't underestimate your enemies, plan for them to be 9ft tall titans and plan your tactics accordingly.
OHHH OUR SWISS MIRAGE..WHEN WE WAS KIDS WE GO TO DÜBENDORF WITH OUR CYCLES TO WATCH ALL THE FIGHTERS IN DÜBENDORF.. F5" TIGERS", HAWKER " HUNTERS", AND THE KING... THE SWISS "MIRAGE III"... BEST TIMES !
The F-35's service record thus far has been pretty good. It's kept Israel relatively unscathed from attacks on all sides. Is it what it was hoped to be? No, but it's far from the boondoggle portrayed here. BTW, I'm a Sweetman fan going way back.
The Israel F-35s are an interesting element. They are seeing a lot of use but in a air dominant position. I'm sure there are many nations watching them very closely.
Well IAF has certainly spread the cheeks of Iranian and Syrian airspace and penetrated it. Repeateadly. Despite S-300's, SA-11's, and few S-400's. Perhaps Russians would not shoot their S400 at IAF F-35I's , but if they could track it, they would pass that information on to Syrians and Iranians.
Israel uses a modified version with a lot of its own electronics in it, so it's probably not representative of the standard F-35A.
Don't believe a word they say about the F-35 before you know what Bill Sweetman has to say about it.
thank you for bringing Bill Sweetman on.😊
The Center for Strategic Studies war game exercise published recently that looked at a China-Taiwan scenario discounted 5th gen fighters in the conflict as largely irrelevant. Their impact is short lived at best in that any air to air would last a couple of days at most before almost all a/c are destroyed on the ground or used up in initial combat.
LM wrote the book on how to milk a government contract for all it's worth.
From a business and shareholder perspective, it is the perfect program.
@@damcasterspod For who? Civilian taxpayer? Considering it is political decsision and lets be real this should be political not shareholders' interest, it is a shot in your own foot.
Many people had their hands dipped into the pie on this project. Year after year after year..
The same Bill Sweetman who was suspended by Aviation Week from covering the F-35 due to his lack of objectivity as a reporter.
Sweetman announced he was quitting journalism back in 2016. Like a lot of other junkies he just can't get that monkey off of his back.
Aviation Week reckomended Bill's book, so maybe there is something in his monkey. ;)
When the USA has a military requirement they invite competitors to submit designs which are then evaluated to find the winner. That market competition should result in a good product for a good price huh? Not always. A frontline fighter has a long service life if it is chosen to make up the bulk of an air force. That often means decades of production, upgrade blocks, and spare parts etc. The winning bid effectively secures a monopoly over most of that for the entire service life of the product. Monopoly prices etc.
There is also so called pork barrel spending and other political influences on the process.
There's also the theory going around that western military products do not exist to fulfill military functions as much as they exist to line shareholder pockets. Whether or not they perform their military function well, they definitely line those pockets. That risks choice being made for business reasons, rather than for making sure the product can do its job.
49:10 "FCAS" who would choose that accronym
after MCAS 😅
Well, more than 2 viewers! Remember this is Bill Sweetman you're interviewing! BTW, Great interview!!
It is always nice to get into double figures! :)
well it might’ve been a train wreck of a program development, but if the war in Ukraine has shown something is that non stealth aircraft cannot operate under the current level of air defences, russians can’t penetrate Ukranian airspace, UAF has to fly nap of the earth so they don’t get shot and nobody has air superiority, if they had something like the F-35 they would, in other words if you don’t have stealth you don’t have a air force
That is certainly the arguement but neither Ukraine nor Russian have been operating SEAD/DEAD to the level anyone expected. The F-35 deployment to Japan from the SEAD role instead of the F-16 Wild Weasles will provide very interesting data for the USAF.
Interesting thanks. I guess the unasked question is where to from here?
It is a very relevant question. Does the F-35 program mean that the "next aircraft" is delayed until the F-35 is being produced in an overall more capible form? Highly likely, so how long does that take? Or does that mean that more money will need to be found to fund a new program while there isn't an end in sight for the F-35? I think the aircraft will be competent over the next five years, but what happens in those years is going to be the kicker.
@damcasterspod it'll be about adding as much capability as possible. The relief is the international buyers funding innovation a'la the F-15.
The F-35 is a damn impressive aircraft. But it's been found that production and operational costs are outrageous. We also know that teaming 5th and 4th generation aircraft has powerful synergy that rivals sole 5th gen ops. I'd rather we have 20-30% advanced combat aircraft and the rest capable, modern non-stealth airframes.
Really? Exactly where's that information is found. Everything I have seen is that the F35 is half as much per flight hr as a block 50 F16. The new block 70/72 F16 is 40 million more per aircraft than the F35.
@@jamesmcd71 See here ... www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106217.pdf
@@jamesmcd71 I had put a link up for the late 2022 GAO report that showed a $15k/hr operating cost difference between the F-35 and F-16, but I don't see it posted.
@PrimarchX that's probably correct. As things progress, it changes. The # expense of both the F35 and the F22 was maintaining the coating. Up until late 23, it took 250 people over a month to strip and recoat each aircraft. Now it's all done by robots in 5 days. This alone dropped the operating costs in half.
The Navy is testing a new paint that is supposed to last 2 to 3 years at sea. If this works, the F35 will be the cheapest aircraft to maintain in the history of aircraft.
My point is that all new technology is extremely expensive in the beginning. If Ford only make 10k vehicles every year, they would be 100s of millions each. As we learned in the 20s, the more you produce, the less each costs. And as technology advances, the less expensive it gets.
@@jamesmcd71 I recognize that costs drop as technology matures. Interesting to hear about the robot coating method! My point isn't anti-F-35, it's more that not EVERY airframe needs those capabilities for an air force to be deadly. Maybe the introduction of loyal wingmen drones will increase lethality for lower overall operating costs?
I'd like to believe your prediction that the F-35 may become the most economical aircraft to operate of all time. But I've been watching this program from the beginning, back when JSF was supposed to be a cost-effective solution leveraging COTS components with a moderate LO signature. Nothing about this program has been low cost. But that's what vendors tell you to get you to sign the contract... :)
US Military procurement is based on which US state the contractor and sub contractors are based in, and if it will translate into winning votes at the next election. Not on the the best option as for example the F-22 v F-23 which was political decision and not based on the thrust vectoring nozels of the f-22 which offer marginal benefit as we are told constantly when the Russian sukhoi's display its use.
If you are still thinking of the F-35 as a vulnerable less than stellar maneuvering dogfighter, then you need to join 2024 and get yourself spun up on modern electronics. For a start, look at 3D IR projection.
The aircraft is becoming what it was intended to be, but still has massive capability gaps. Block 4 is where deployed aircraft should be, but the majority are not and as such do not have the capability you mention. Plus, what comes next for the US when there is no money? That is the crux of Bill's concern.
right, if you kill 2 to 1 but the enemy planes cost 1/2
you're really just breaking even...
Fighter pilot math right there
Anyone who starts by talking about how expensive the F35 shows there not talking about facts. The price for a new block 70 f16 is 121 million each , the new F15, while still very limited supply are 170 million each.
The current block of F35s are 85 million each. No matter what math you use, the F35 is less expensive to buy, own, and operate than new versions of old platforms.
Both of those costs for the F-15 and F-16 are impacted by resuming production for lines that had been shut, which will alway see a hike in price for iniatl deliveries. What you are missing is that the USAF is forced to return to 50 year old aircraft because the new one has sucked up all the funding. You have to look beyond unit cost when doing your maths.
@damcasterspod No. The F16 has never ended production. And the Saudi government paid 100% of the bill to restart the F15 production. The F16 Block 70/72 upgrades were funded by India and production is in India and South Carolina.
This makes me wonder if you have any basic knowledge of the things you talk about.
Resuming production for a native aircraft does incur the costs I mentioned.
@damcasterspod look buddy. Just except the fact you need to know about an issue before you try to educate others on that issue. You might be coming at this in a genuine way and just not be properly educated. Or you intend to push lies and propaganda. Only you know the truth. But it appears that not stopping and checking after I called the facts to your attention makes me believe you're not concerned about the truth.
As for your savings grace statement. Yes, it increases the costs for India with the block 70/72 F15 and Saudi with the F15 only. The US has no development expenses in restarting the F15. As I said, the F16 has never stopped production.
As of now the US has no plans to buy any new Block 70/72 F16 ( I'm sure they will) the deal with India provides upgrades to Block 70 for all Block 50 or later existing F16s.
I know all this is very unusual. The US hasn't thought about the taxpayers' money in over 50 years. The fact that all of these deals were put in place between 2016 and 2020 must be ignored due to mental illness.
It's kinda like the new Airforce 1. It was on schedule and under budget. The only thing the media could complain about was how much the refrigerator cost.
Then, just weeks after the election, Boeing says it's going to take an extra year or 2. Now Boeing said it can't even provide a schedule or budget.
OHHH OUR SWISS MIRAGE..WHEN WE WAS KIDS WE GO TO DÜBENDORF WITH OUR CYCLES TO WATCH ALL THE FIGHTERS IN DÜBENDORF.. F5" TIGERS", HAWKER " HUNTERS", AND THE KING... THE SWISS "MIRAGE III"... BEST TIMES !
Another person (hack) taking things out of context and spinning it to their liking. F-35 will end up being regarded an excellent aircraft(s) and worth every dollar.
His arguement is about the impact of the program and the aircraft still not being match fit. Block 4 is where it should be, but those aircarft are in the minority. While the aircraft may prove its worth, the cost may leave a capability gap going forward, which is Bill's concern. Bill has the experience give his assesment, so to call him a hack is harsh.
@@damcasterspod - if it walks like a hack, talks like a hack, and acts like a hack...it's a hack.
The idea that R&D cost has to be folded into the production run of an aircraft is ludicrous. How many expensive R&D programs are done just to gain understanding and never lead to a production run, where does that cost get folded into?
As for capability gap, I didn't hear anyone crying about it when the F-15, F-16, and F-18 started their creep into the ground attack area and other things. AND in response to your Block 4 argument, those that want to spend will upgrade to Block 4; that is if they aren't on the naughty list.
Shout out from tucson it was 112f today
It was 53 here yesterday... British summers are wonderful 🤦
I agree with your analysis. Anytime you put the word "joint" into a project, it is doomed. No one plane can do the job for all 3 services. Too many compromises.
Bill Sweetman🙄
Alright, this is a video I skip. I dont feel as though your qualified to tackle this subject.
Before you even listen you make up your mind? How liberal of you.....
It is not me tackling it (despite reading much defence analysis on the subject and using it as case study for training Business Analysts for nearly a decade) but Bill, who is far more qualified to speak to the F-35 and the progam so far. To the degree he and his book are discussed on a recent Aviation Week podcast. Give it a go, I think it is an interesting conversation, especally the bits around the alternatives that are being discussed.
Hey, PasleyAviationPhotography ... Bill Sweetman sure the hell is!
@@damcasterspodno one person is qualified, we each may contribute to a specific part and may be an expert in a particular area but nobody is an expert in every area.
some interesting points were in this interview, thanks.
What would have happened if the F-16 had to be a VTOL and Navy carrier capable jet?
pretty much the same
Wrong question to ask - what you should be asking is why the hell one airframe is expected to do so much?
And why are politicians (who generally don't have a clue about REAL military requirements and/or capabilities) allowed to get away this kind of crap? This isn't the first time either - remember the F111 naval version fiasco?
@jackaubrey8614 That at least got us the F-14.
But a F-16 Viper, AV-8B Harrier, FA-18C Hornet replacement, and F-22 compliment, was a clearly terrible idea. And of course- delayed, over budget, and not what was promised.
I simply can't get excited seeing the -B model specifically.
@@jackaubrey8614 When politicians start designing aircraft (and ships) ... Look Out! Yeah the TFX/F-111 was a mess of a program. There was a funny cartoon that ran in AW&ST showing the F-111 as able to do every aircraft mission imaginable. There was a KF-111 Tanker and just about every other crazy variant. Probably just what Robert Strange McNamara (SECDEF) dreamed of.
I disagree!
I totally welcome that! The debate is certainly worth having.
So, Fat Amy is semi good against radar guided missiles BVR. But is so hot that even Chinese second gen, rear aspect heat seekers are going to be able to find this thing from the front aspect. Money well spent I say!!
Given the deployment to Japan by the Air Force and USMC, it'll be interesting to see what data they gather in theatre.
In the words of "Sheldon Cooper" ... "Sarcasm?" I hope so.
F-35 blows anything China has by far! the F-15EX's are super nice too. They complement each other.
@@michaeldelaney7271 Yes. CZcams needs a sarcasm emoji.
@@bdub1934 @bdub1934 I'd rather the AF go the route of new build F-15C with the EX glass cockpit & radar, an F-15CX if you will. The EX like the E, is a bomb truck first. The EX will have one good turn in it and then will be in a low energy state from then on.
Don't underestimate your enemies, plan for them to be 9ft tall titans and plan your tactics accordingly.
OHHH OUR SWISS MIRAGE..WHEN WE WAS KIDS WE GO TO DÜBENDORF WITH OUR CYCLES TO WATCH ALL THE FIGHTERS IN DÜBENDORF.. F5" TIGERS", HAWKER " HUNTERS", AND THE KING... THE SWISS "MIRAGE III"... BEST TIMES !