Software issues leave F35 unable to fire its 25mm cannon until 2019

[The Mikado]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html

If you haven't been following the trials and travails of the F-35, it's one debacle after another as the world's flashiest waste of money proves to be the most useless and idiotic of many Pentagon boondoogles, but this story takes the cake.

If our procurement system wasn't broken, the F-35 would probably have been cancelled 15 years ago. Everyone knows that building F-35s is basically the "pay someone to break windows and repair them" of military hardware: it's pointless, useless make-work to keep constituents happy and lets the fighter jocks pretend that they have been relevant to military matters at some point since the Korean War ended.

[King]

Hopefully Congress can find more cuts in the food stamp program to pay to fix this.

[The_Doctor]

Did Obama overhaul the procurement system a few years ago? I read that he had instituted significant reforms that were accelerated by the budget caps placed in 2011, that forced the Pentagon to prioritize its purchases.

FTW, I agree completely with Rand Paul and the Democrats that the procurement system is beyond broken. Military spending is out of control on wasteful items instead of actual items we need. The F-35 is one such example. The number of bases we have is another example. And so on. The Pentagon doesn't need to be halved in funding, but taking out $30-40 billion wouldn't change the readiness of our military (Or freezing spending till 2020).

[Redalgo]

I would be inclined to agree if not for efforts underway in other countries - including the PRC, India, and Russia - to develop a better fleet of airborne assets. It is important to have a technological edge in our naval and air forces. Without them the U.S. cannot secure trade lanes or guarantee ground support, and would have to make do with fewer options when it comes to proportional responses to hostile actions.

The falcons, super hornets, and eagles in service are becoming obsolete. That is to say they will eventually become cannon fodder (pun not intended!) for the fifth and sixth generation fighters flown by other world powers. And because those fighters will eventually proliferate in the form of export models, we could even get to a point where our hardware is ineffective in industrializing and lesser-developed countries.

The costs have been ridiculous and I agree with your concerns about procurement and contractors, but at the same time there is also the fact that if the F-22 and F-35 are both scrubbed then something else will be needed to fill the void. I would really rather that "something else" not be thousands of drones or a new multi-billion dollar project to produce yet another 5th gen fighter that will be ready just in time for Chinese prototypes to be sporting laser armaments.

[The Mikado]

And you think that any future war will involve dogfighting and not planes using missiles from 200 miles away? Or that drones, which can pull off maneuvers that would leave the fittest human pilot unconscious, won't be able to rival the best manned aircraft? The US hasn't had a dogfight since 1972 and the world hasn't seen them since the Ethiopia-Eritrea war nearly 20 years ago. Fighters are dead.

Of the countries the US might go to war with conceivably in the next decade, the only significant airforce is Iran's rusting and jerry-rigged 40 year old F-14s. The US doesn't make a habit of attacking countries that can credibly fight back outside of an insurgency model, and any plane the developing world's countries buy from Russia or China would bankrupt those poorer countries with maintenance and fuel to give their pilots credible flight time. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that there will never again be a serious aereal dogfight. The US only picks fights with those that can't fight back.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And you think that any future war will involve dogfighting and not planes using missiles from 200 miles away? Or that drones, which can pull off maneuvers that would leave the fittest human pilot unconscious, won't be able to rival the best manned aircraft?

Much the same arguments about the obsolescence of the dogfight is why the F-4 was originally delivered without a gun.  But even assuming that be true, for CAS missions, being able to strafe the enemy, especially the enemy in close proximity to your own forces, is an important capability.  The main flaw with the F-35 is that it tried to combine too many mission profiles, especially S/VTOL capability, into the same airframe.  At this point in the development cycle, it's unclear that seeking a replacement for the F-35A and C could be done in a timely or cost effective manner, tho hindsight makes it clear that those missions should not have shared the same airframe as the F-35B.

[Redalgo]

And you think that any future war will involve dogfighting and not planes using missiles from 200 miles away? Or that drones, which can pull off maneuvers that would leave the fittest human pilot unconscious, won't be able to rival the best manned aircraft? The US hasn't had a dogfight since 1972 and the world hasn't seen them since the Ethiopia-Eritrea war nearly 20 years ago. Fighters are dead.

I do not think dogfights will happen much if at all, aye, but as Ernest points out the aircraft would basically be unable to attack anything on the ground whilst rigged for AAW. Drones could fill the vacated niche, true, but to be honest I am averse to it since I suspect leaders will be less reluctant to initiate violence if none of their own people are in danger. I am honestly not sure that I am ready to live in a world where wars entail a major world power only losing money and metal while its opponents lose human lives fighting against mechanized minions of enemy personnel comfortably situated in front of PCs half a world away.

Perhaps the opposition to drones is unfounded and amounts to little more than the worrying of a bloke with just a wee bit of personal techno-conservatism to overcome. Or maybe not. I'm not yet sure.

. . . I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that there will never again be a serious aereal dogfight. The US only picks fights with those that can't fight back.

This is a distinct possibility, yes. I have no clue what the world will be like thirty or forty years from now, however, and in light of that uncertainty I am tempted to reply that it is better to play it safe and plan for the future than to risk someday being caught unprepared. Since this is not a high-priority issue for me what I would suggest is at the very least to keep producing prototypes, testing them, and learning from the results so that our country remains capable of quickly churning out quality hardware if/when new threats emerge. It is an attitude akin to that I have for building new surface combatants for the navy.


For whatever its worth though I do not place a high priority on defense. If the public is uninterested in paying higher taxes it would be preferable for leaders to cut quite deeply into military spending prior to exploring any other forms of austerity.

[Silent Hunter]

Of the countries the US might go to war with conceivably in the next decade, the only significant airforce is Iran's rusting and jerry-rigged 40 year old F-14s. The US doesn't make a habit of attacking countries that can credibly fight back outside of an insurgency model, and any plane the developing world's countries buy from Russia or China would bankrupt those poorer countries with maintenance and fuel to give their pilots credible flight time. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that there will never again be a serious aereal dogfight. The US only picks fights with those that can't fight back.

The US has already used the F-22 in Syria, where its stealth gives it extra protection against any SAM system controlled by IS.