Surely not.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/29/us-air-force-f35-stealth-fighter-jet-5th-6th-generation/

Don't call me Shirley.

Quote:

---

'Trillion dollar trainwreck': US super stealth fighter is eating the next generation
F-35 problems are paralysing the US Air Force

All of a sudden, the US Air Force is considering cancelling a multibillion-dollar effort to develop a new stealth fighter. Citing the high cost of the so-called "Next-Generation Air Dominance" programme and the competing demands of other projects, USAF leaders have warned they may have no choice but to cancel NGAD and find other ways of winning control of the air in future wars.

It's a startling development for advocates of American air power. For generations, the whole US military not to mention the militaries of America's closest allies have depended on the US Air Force to achieve air superiority against even the most determined and sophisticated foe, affording freedom of action for troops on the ground and ships at sea.

For generations, the US Air Force has gained control of the air by fighting for it, jet to jet, with the world's best air-to-air fighters and highly-trained pilots. Late in the Cold War and into the 2000s, the Boeing F-15C Eagle fighter was the world's top fighter. Later, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor assumed this position.

The last few dozen F-15Cs are finally retiring after five decades of service. The 180 or so F-22s are pushing 20 years old and won't last forever. The US Air Force has already asked the US Congress for permission to retire the three dozen least-capable F-22s in order to free up a billion dollars for other priorities a request lawmakers have denied, for now.

---

Drones are cheaper. Just saying. At the very least they'll make pilotless super fighters in the future. We've already seen it here, how they've tested AI planes out.

Not surprised. Everytime the military tries to make an expensive weapons system meet multiple use case criteria, it's almost always a financial and operational disaster.

I thought this was about the Covid forum, at first.

I thought F35 referenced the covid board and was elated.

Bummer.

ME TOO!

The flying F-35 is an ugly POS that can't fly. And it's fat. It looks like the Drahknor03 of jet fighters. I hate it and every lobbyist that came begging for a piece of the $2T pie.

KILL THE AGGIELAND BOARD.

KILL IT WITH FIRE.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Not surprised. Everytime the military tries to make an expensive weapons system meet multiple use case criteria, it's almost always a financial and operational disaster.

---

this

Should have built more F-22s. I know they were expensive, but that is a beautiful plane that actually works.

Even with a production and maintenance cost of a projected 700 million dollars over the 40 year life, two trillion dollars would have paid for another 2,800 planes.

The folks that signed off on the F-35 out to be in prison.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Should have built more F-22s. I know they were expensive, but that is a beautiful plane that actually works.

Even with a production and maintenance cost of a projected 700 million dollars over the 40 year life, two trillion dollars would have paid for another 2,800 planes.

The folks that signed off on the F-35 out to be in prison.

---

BUT in today's America, they get reelected, continue graft grift theft and then receive cushy retirements book deals and speaking engagements. What a country!

Completely different mission objectives. The F-35 has had its setbacks, but it not being an F-22 is an unfair criticism.

The NGAD has a huge wingman drone component. It is not going to be canceled.

The new blocks of F-35 are more than capable and are reliable. The new F-15EX (if purchased) can fill in a lot of gaps where cheaper flights are preferred.

The F-22 had a new upgraded design pitched a decade or so ago but it was declined. Its stealth technology and sensors are aging and it is high maintenance. It is also inhibited by its short range. The NGAD designed to replace the F-22.

Quote:

---

USAF leaders have warned they may have no choice but to cancel NGAD

---

This article is discussing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program not the F-35 or F-22 or the F-15

Drahknor03 said:

---

ME TOO!

The flying F-35 is an ugly POS that can't fly. And it's fat. It looks like the Drahknor03 of jet fighters. I hate it and every lobbyist that came begging for a piece of the $2T pie.

---

Nah...the F-35 looks good.

Now, the Boeing JSF that lost to it??? THAT was ugly. And, I was talking the other day with an engineer who worked on it that confirmed the nickname WAS Monica...

.. thought this might free up F16s for the patriots blood of tree rebellion

biden said they're needed

PCC_80 said:

---

Quote:

---

USAF leaders have warned they may have no choice but to cancel NGAD

---

This article is discussing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program not the F-35 or F-22 or the F-15

---

THIS

Good God.

fc2112 said:

---

PCC_80 said:

---

Quote:

---

USAF leaders have warned they may have no choice but to cancel NGAD

---

This article is discussing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program not the F-35 or F-22 or the F-15

---

THIS

Good God.

---

Some folks reading comprehension is lacking

Drahknor03 said:

---

ME TOO!

The flying F-35 is an ugly POS that can't fly. And it's fat. It looks like the Drahknor03 of jet fighters. I hate it and every lobbyist that came begging for a piece of the $2T pie.

---

Because the armaments are carried within the fuselage and hence stealthier. It is not a matter of diet.

The sad part about it that the cost was poised to go to$2.5T, but Trump told them no more money, and they miraculously found they in fact could complete it with the funding they had.

That said, the article isn't about the F-35.

The USAF needs to commit to a platform/vision as to how it (air dominance platform) will be integrated with unmanned platforms, imho. The article in OP is right about that part. I'm not sure if NGAD is 'do or die' correct though, as much of it predates the drone/loyal wingman stuff going on now post-Ukraine war.

At $300million per copy, accepting inflation/historical over-run costs making that something closer to $800 million each, maybe they are right to walk away early.

I think we should make our entire USAF the A-10 supported by thousands of cheap drones.

I mean, this guy was on it 8 years ago:

American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

the F-35 apparently sucks too. Per the article (way down), the troubles with the F-35 are a big reason the USAF pentagon goons are rethining continuing the NGAD. The other reasons are expected budget cuts from Republican-controlled US House and money needed to build the B-21.

Quote:

---

But deliveries of the $80-million F-35s to USAF squadrons stalled last year as the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin struggled to complete testing of the type's latest software. Today there are scores of complete USAF F-35s sitting in storage, awaiting software. That's billions of dollars worth of fighters that aren't even available to front-line squadrons.
The cost and timeline for testing the software, installing it and finally delivering those stored keep extending. And while deliveries may resume this summer, it could take another year for Lockheed to hand over the last stored jet.

It's not for no reason that aviation expert Bill Sweetman refers to the F-35 as a "trillion-dollar trainwreck." The fighter is eating the US Air Force's budget and forcing the service to rethink its next fighter.

source.

---

sanangelo said:

---

the F-35 apparently sucks too. Per the article (way down), the troubles with the F-35 are a big reason the USAF pentagon goons are rethining continuing the NGAD. The other reasons are expected budget cuts from Republican-controlled US House and money needed to build the B-21.

Quote:

---

But deliveries of the $80-million F-35s to USAF squadrons stalled last year as the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin struggled to complete testing of the type's latest software. Today there are scores of complete USAF F-35s sitting in storage, awaiting software. That's billions of dollars worth of fighters that aren't even available to front-line squadrons.
The cost and timeline for testing the software, installing it and finally delivering those stored keep extending. And while deliveries may resume this summer, it could take another year for Lockheed to hand over the last stored jet.

It's not for no reason that aviation expert Bill Sweetman refers to the F-35 as a "trillion-dollar trainwreck." The fighter is eating the US Air Force's budget and forcing the service to rethink its next fighter.

source.

---

---

So...do you think the NGAD will be free of software issues?

Or ANY next gen military program?

Ag with kids said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

the F-35 apparently sucks too. Per the article (way down), the troubles with the F-35 are a big reason the USAF pentagon goons are rethining continuing the NGAD. The other reasons are expected budget cuts from Republican-controlled US House and money needed to build the B-21.

Quote:

---

But deliveries of the $80-million F-35s to USAF squadrons stalled last year as the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin struggled to complete testing of the type's latest software. Today there are scores of complete USAF F-35s sitting in storage, awaiting software. That's billions of dollars worth of fighters that aren't even available to front-line squadrons.
The cost and timeline for testing the software, installing it and finally delivering those stored keep extending. And while deliveries may resume this summer, it could take another year for Lockheed to hand over the last stored jet.

It's not for no reason that aviation expert Bill Sweetman refers to the F-35 as a "trillion-dollar trainwreck." The fighter is eating the US Air Force's budget and forcing the service to rethink its next fighter.

source.

---

---

So...do you think the NGAD will be free of software issues?

---

I will bet that the NGAD will be 100% troubled by its software. Probably will be programmed with Objective C on Windows NT. That's probably what is wrong with the F-35 too!

sanangelo said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

the F-35 apparently sucks too. Per the article (way down), the troubles with the F-35 are a big reason the USAF pentagon goons are rethining continuing the NGAD. The other reasons are expected budget cuts from Republican-controlled US House and money needed to build the B-21.

Quote:

---

But deliveries of the $80-million F-35s to USAF squadrons stalled last year as the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin struggled to complete testing of the type's latest software. Today there are scores of complete USAF F-35s sitting in storage, awaiting software. That's billions of dollars worth of fighters that aren't even available to front-line squadrons.
The cost and timeline for testing the software, installing it and finally delivering those stored keep extending. And while deliveries may resume this summer, it could take another year for Lockheed to hand over the last stored jet.

It's not for no reason that aviation expert Bill Sweetman refers to the F-35 as a "trillion-dollar trainwreck." The fighter is eating the US Air Force's budget and forcing the service to rethink its next fighter.

source.

---

---

So...do you think the NGAD will be free of software issues?

---

I will bet that the NGAD will be 100% troubled by its software. Probably will be programmed with Objective C on Windows NT. That's probably what is wrong with the F-35 too!

---

Hah...I programmed stuff in Ada 85 for the F-16.

But, some of it is that some things get mandated off the block...and then remember that NO MATTER WHAT, this program won't go operational until at least 2044. Think about how software and hardware changes in that timeline...

YouBet said:

---

I think we should make our entire USAF the A-10 supported by thousands of cheap drones.

---

And we have the dumbest post on this thread.


Remind me again…what is the survivability of the A-10 in a modern IADS?

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think we should make our entire USAF the A-10 supported by thousands of cheap drones.

---

And we have the dumbest post on this thread.


Remind me again…what is the survivability of the A-10 in a modern IADS?

---

Someone needs to buy a new sarcasmeter...

Ag87H2O said:

---

Should have built more F-22s. I know they were expensive, but that is a beautiful plane that actually works.

Even with a production and maintenance cost of a projected 700 million dollars over the 40 year life, two trillion dollars would have paid for another 2,800 planes.

The folks that signed off on the F-35 out to be in prison.

---

So happy someone dropped in a pic of Boeing's X-32 whale!!!

The media has hated the f35 and have been overblowing its issues since it first began. They would rather us be like Europe where all the government spending goes towards social programs. NGAD will suffer the same media bashing.

Why can't we do something cheaper that dominates. I recall an inexpensive fighter concept a few years ago using off the shelf parts that ran $5 million each, a real bargain for a fighter jet. Make em no frills and plentiful then save the big bucks for a small batch of super fighters.

techno-ag said:

---

Why can't we do something cheaper that dominates. I recall an inexpensive fighter concept a few years ago using off the shelf parts that ran $5 million each, a real bargain for a fighter jet. Make em no frills and plentiful then save the big bucks for a small batch of super fighters.

---

Good
Fast
Cheap

You want all 3...

Granted, you could make something that would dominate a 3rd world airspace on the cheap. But...that's not what this is for.

Ag with kids said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Why can't we do something cheaper that dominates. I recall an inexpensive fighter concept a few years ago using off the shelf parts that ran $5 million each, a real bargain for a fighter jet. Make em no frills and plentiful then save the big bucks for a small batch of super fighters.

---

Good
Fast
Cheap

You want all 3...

Granted, you could make something that would dominate a 3rd world airspace on the cheap. But...that's not what this is for.

---

I dunno. One thing the Soviets did well was weapon systems. Take the AK-47. Darn near indestructible. Simple. Rugged. I feel like $800 million buys a lot of drones, it buys a lot of less expensive fighter jets.

We need something that dominates China and Russia. Not some used f14s in Iran.