Today we observe Veterans Day.
In addition to remembering those who died in previous wars, let’s consider our arsenal for the next ones.
The F-35 was used in combat by the US for the first time in September (Reuters story on attacking a ground target in Afghanistan; maybe a drone could have done this?). Wikipedia says that taxpayers began funding this program in 1992 and that the plane first flew in 2000 (prototype) and 2006 (production version). So it was 26 years from the start of development to the first military use, longer than the interval between World War I and World War II.
Comparison: The B-29, the most technologically advanced plane that we had in World War II, was requested by the Air Corps in December 1939, first flew in 1942, and was used in combat in June 1944 (5.5 years after the start of the program).
Should we be happy with Donald Trump for not starting any new wars? Or unhappy with him for not disentangling us from places where we apparently can’t win (or even define “win”)? See “Who Is Winning the War in Afghanistan? Depends on Which One” (nytimes, August 18), for example.
I think we should be happy he has not started any new wars!
If you want to be impressed, look at the development cycle of the North American Mustang. British-specced, NA-designed and built, if I recall. Arguably the best fighter of WWII.
Can you please explain, Phil, if you know, why there is this long lag time between funding and use? The tone of this post seems to suggest government incompetence either in deploying the aircraft or superfluous technology – but is that the issue?
I’ve read the claim that the whole reason for the F-35’s existence was to eliminate the European fighter aircraft industry much like the F-16 almost did. And with strike aircraft being so important, having all the EU states fly the F-35 would completely subordinate EU armed forces to those of the US. The F-35 does not have to be the best Western fighter, it has to be the only one. The fact that it might be inferior in air combat to the latest Russian and Chinese fighters was not an issue at the time the program was conceived – Russia was broke and China was building MiG-21 clones.
Jack: Why 14 years from funding to production and then another 12 years to first military use? I don’t know! Plainly there is a lack of perceived urgency, but maybe we should be glad for that because the urgency in World War II came from being involved in an intensive conflict.
On the third hand, the U-2 spy plane was sketched in 1953, green-lit in 1954, flown in 1955, and used military in 1956. There was only a “cold war” going on at the time. (See https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/u2.html ).
The F-35 is far superior to any fighter that Russia or China has. China’s “latest” fighter jet is a copy of 1960s era planes. The simulations that it has “lost” on are not situations that will ever occur in real life, the F-35 will not fight top gun style. It is like saying a tank pummeled a helicopter that was on the ground, yes, true, but does not reflect what will happen in warfare. Consider this testimony from a pilot who has flown the F-16, F/A-18, F-22 and F-35:
https://www.businessinsider.com/f35-pilot-david-berke-f18-upgrade-preposterous-35-201
OTOH, what do we make of the alleged fact that Marine One could not fly in the rain?
The F-4 Phantom II was built on the “theory” that the plane would never dog fight, and after a few months in Viet Nam the services were looking at how to add a gun to it. The F-35 is a cheap compromise between more F-22’s, which can get home missing one engine, can the F-35 do that?
A college professor’s father was a B-29 instructor pilot in 1943 or so. He told stories of repeatedly having to put B-29’s into steep dives in order to extinguish engine fires, especially early planes. Perhaps he would have been happier if, given the opportunity, they had taken a little more development time with the platform?