Nearly 200 of America's F-35s May Remain Indefinitely Unfit for Combat (Updated)

MSgt said:

Exactly the reason the crap continues. Billions of dollars pumped into Defense contracts to build new toys does little for the troop who has to buy his own body armor. This was 2003, but the waste continues in other places. Did you know that in the 1990s there was a shortage of training ammo? A very high percentage of equipment "awaiting parts?" Still, billions and billions of dollars went out to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the rest.

Click to expand...

Sarge, I helped train Raptor drivers prior to my retirement. Believe me the whole idea behind the jet is stealth and air superiority. I believe you are confusing the F-22 with the F-35. If you hang bomb pylons on the jet you destroy the stealth capability.

I can't say what congress was told but believe me the Raptor is not an air to mud jet.

MSgt said:

Exactly the reason the crap continues. Billions of dollars pumped into Defense contracts to build new toys does little for the troop who has to buy his own body armor. This was 2003, but the waste continues in other places. Did you know that in the 1990s there was a shortage of training ammo? A very high percentage of equipment "awaiting parts?" Still, billions and billions of dollars went out to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the rest.

Click to expand...

Because those companies have been smart and distributed the work of designing and building these super expensive weapons across many states and congressional districts. There was one incident (don't remember specifics) where congress approved a large contract for something the Pentagon stated it did not want or need. It's pathetic, but that's what happens when this stuff becomes a way for our reps to "bring home the bacon". And when it's to the detriment of meeting actual needs? Pathetic.

Old Sarge said:

Sarge, I helped train Raptor drivers prior to my retirement. Believe me the whole idea behind the jet is stealth and air superiority. I believe you are confusing the F-22 with the F-35. If you hang bomb pylons on the jet you destroy the stealth capability.

I can't say what congress was told but believe me the Raptor is not an air to mud jet.

Click to expand...

I am not confusing anything.

In September 2002, the USAF decided to redesignate the aircraft F/A-22 to reflect its multi-mission capability in ground attack as well as air-to-air roles. The aircraft's designation was changed again to F-22A when it achieved initial operating capability (IOC) in December 2005.

Click to expand...

And you are correct about the capability problem. Jerry-rigging it to give it even a limited ground capability did degrade its original purpose. But this was temporary. The re-designation from F-22 to F/A-22 worked well enough for Congress. The shift away from ground support occurred with yet another re-designation (F-22A) years later. And by April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed the F-22's cost to be $361 million per aircraft (pg 59). Congress was sold a bill of goods and in the end there was no benefit to the troop. By 2009, it still had not seen combat. That would be eight years after the "War on Terror" began. And this is where this program did no favors to troops who had to wait on air support because a line system had to be created going back to 2003. Air strike missions were stacked because there simply was not enough A-10s, Apaches, Cobras, etc. to go around.

To add insult, are you aware of the 2004 war games with the Indian Air Force, in which our Air Force was constantly defeated? Prior to the games, the Air Force decided that it needed to turn off certain systems in the jets for the sake of secrecy. The games were left to our pilots. Human error was the cause of the defeats. The reliance on systems that take the job out of the hands of our pilots left them unprepared for the task. The Air Force's response was to insist that this was proof that the F-22 was necessary.

MSgt said:

I am not confusing anything.



And you are correct about the capability problem. Jerry-rigging it to give it even a limited ground capability did degrade its original purpose. But this was temporary. The re-designation from F-22 to F/A-22 worked well enough for Congress. The shift away from ground support occurred with yet another re-designation (F-22A) years later. And by April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed the F-22's cost to be $361 million per aircraft (pg 59). Congress was sold a bill of goods and in the end there was no benefit to the troop. By 2009, it still had not seen combat. That would be eight years after the "War on Terror" began. And this is where this program did no favors to troops who had to wait on air support because a line system had to be created going back to 2003. Air strike missions were stacked because there simply was not enough A-10s, Apaches, Cobras, etc. to go around.

To add insult, are you aware of the 2004 war games with the Indian Air Force, in which our Air Force was constantly defeated? Prior to the games, the Air Force decided that it needed to turn off certain systems in the jets for the sake of secrecy. The games were left to our pilots. Human error was the cause of the defeats. The reliance on systems that take the job out of the hands of our pilots left them unprepared for the task. The Air Force's response was to insist that this was proof that the F-22 was necessary.

Click to expand...

Ok so the service played games with congress to get the funding. Do you believe the AF is the only service that does this?

As far as the 2004 war games are concerned the Raptor didn't even enter service till 2005, but here is the story on the war games "Not exactly, according to observers and participants. The exercises had mixed teams of Indian and American pilots on both sides, which means that both the Americans and the Indians won, and lost. Yet, observers say that in a surprising number of encounters - particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs - the Indian pilots came out the winners." I can't comment on Viper drivers as I have never worked with them.

So let's just agree to disagree on the Raptor.

Old Sarge said:

Ok so the service played games with congress to get the funding. Do you believe the AF is the only service that does this?

Click to expand...

Ahhh, nope nope. See, this is no cause to default into Branch pride. This is about the F-22 and what such programs have caused. It is no secret that the Air Force, above all others, embraced the RMA culture at the expense of training its pilots.

You are avoiding it...

Indian pilots reportedly notched up an astounding 9:1 kill ratio against the all-powerful USAF, sending shock waves through the American defense establishment...the USAF gave their Indian counterparts their due. Colonel Mike Snodgrass, commander of the USAF’s 3rd Wing based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska: “The outcome of the exercise boils down to (the fact that) they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected...They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change (tactics in flight).”

Click to expand...

The training exercise, in which some of the toys were shut down, proved that there was more interest in getting the Raptor in the skies than training good pilots. The fix, according to the Air Force, was a new plane that it did not need. After all, our pilots were not facing Raptors, just good pilots. The jets they were flying in were more than capable of doing the job. Our pilots do not need to fly in Lamborghinis and our troops don't need to wait on air support because a large and expensive program in the Air Force is waiting for a dog fight war that isn't coming.

Old Sarge said:

So let's just agree to disagree on the Raptor.

Click to expand...

Well, most of the Air Force does disagree. It's everybody else looking in that sees it. It took the Marines years and years to finally admit that their Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program was over-expensive, time-wasting to develop, and unnecessary. It was a never-ending Program in development hell. They finally resorted to the practical and this is why the very nice ACV is on the way. It's about military readiness, not creating useless contracts to keep assembly lines open.

And what is it with you people and your misplaced Branch pride? Addressing faults is exactly how the military gets better.

Floridafan said:

Spare us your BS. With the biggest defense budget in the world our armed force are broke?

Click to expand...

They are more broke-down than broke. As another poster has pointed out, most of the big spending goes for weapons systems and fancy hardware and very expensive contractors skimming the cream. The grunt has to purchase his own body armor and goggles.

MSgt said:

Ahhh, nope nope. See, this is no cause to default into Branch pride. This is about the F-22 and what such programs have caused. It is no secret that the Air Force, above all others, embraced the RMA culture at the expense of training its pilots.

You are avoiding it...



The training exercise, in which some of the toys were shut down, proved that there was more interest in getting the Raptor in the skies than training good pilots. The fix, according to the Air Force, was a new plane that it did not need. After all, our pilots were not facing Raptors, just good pilots. The jest they were flying in were more than capable of doing the job.




Well, most of the Air Force does disagree. It's everybody else looking in that sees it. It took the Marines years and years to finally admit that their Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program was over-expensive, time-wasting to develop, and unnecessary. They finally resorted to the practical and this is why the very nice ACV is on the way. It's about military readiness, not creating useless contracts to keep assembly lines open.

And what is it with you people and your misplaced Branch pride? Addressing faults is exactly how the military gets better.

Click to expand...

Sarge, I don't know why you have a hard on for the Raptor! It's not about pride it's about facts! Like it or not it is just about the best air superiority fighter in the world. Like it or not which is more important cost or effectiveness? If cost is such a concern then you should be advocating going back to using F-4's as they were so much cheaper! As I said I have worked with both the jet and it's pilots and I believe I know a little more about both than someone who must rely on articles that may or may not be correct. So as I said let's agree to disagree.

Thoreau72 said:

They are more broke-down than broke. As another poster has pointed out, most of the big spending goes for weapons systems and fancy hardware and very expensive contractors skimming the cream. The grunt has to purchase his own body armor and goggles.

Click to expand...

Well, not anymore. What happened in 2003 and 2004, was high profile enough in the media that the White House gushed the money towards troop level support. Funny enough story:

Each branch did their thing, but the Marine Corps developed the "Urgent" UNS system, which allowed leaders to request pretty much anything they wanted if it could be argued towards mission necessity. But, of course, the unit level proved to be just as wasteful as those fat contracts on high. Along with the purchase of more military equpment was also the purchase of new civilian equipment for comms, weapons systems, vehicles, etc. Because a lot of new equipment was not organic to the Marine Corps (even to the military), there was a need for technical expertise. Enter very high paychecks for the civilians who came from the companies to assist the Marines in operating the equipment. They actually deployed with the units. It got to the point where during Division rotation, Marine units and even the civilian counterparts were dropping in on gear and expressing, "what the F is this?"

Old Sarge said:

Sarge, I don't know why you have a hard on for the Raptor!

Click to expand...

Because I was a ground troop looking for air support.

And no, the article is quite correct. It's not like these facts might be wrong and the Air Force quotes didn't happen.

MSgt said:

Because I was a ground troop looking for air support.

And no, the article is quite correct. It's not like these facts might be wrong and the Air Force quotes didn't happen.

Click to expand...

If your so worried about ground support then you should be rooting for the jet that will give us air superiority without which you don't have ground support!

Old Sarge said:

If your so worried about ground support then you should be rooting for the jet that will give us air superiority without which you don't have ground support!

Click to expand...

But this is based on an ideology. This would be like the Navy wanting hundreds of billions of dollars so it can develop new subs, because the great naval battle of the future is on the way.

The only threats in the air comes from long-standing allies and countries like China or Russia who do not want a fight. Besides, air superiority is not just about the new toy. Its also about the pilot. The F-22 program shows that we lean too far to one side. We got caught with out pants down, and the only answer the Air Force could come up with was to keep pouring money into this program.

We need more air to ground bombers and close-air support. I mean, if we are short a Corpsmen, we don't look to get ourselves a Mortar man.

Old Sarge said:

...you should be rooting for the jet that will give us air superiority...

Click to expand...

I should have submitted this bit n my last reply. I apologize for the inefficiency. But this presents the hole in the routine argument...

- Not a single F-22 contributed to air superiority over Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet we maintained air superiority just fine. So this is not "the jet" that will give us air superiority.

- And considering that, as I am sure you know very well, this is program that began in 1981 to replace the F-15 and the F-16, flying over Syria in 2014 is hardly a cause for celebration or a thing justifies its development hell. It should be a sign that this has been a very long and unnecessary program.

The F-22 is an ideological weapon and its program has only really served experimentation. I mean, when funds start to get redirected towards the maintenance of equipment that is still being developed, we need to step back and take a better look.

MSgt said:

I should have submitted this bit n my last reply. I apologize for the inefficiency. But this presents the hole in the routine argument...

- Not a single F-22 contributed to air superiority over Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet we maintained air superiority just fine. So this is not "the jet" that will give us air superiority.

- And considering that, as I am sure you know very well, this is program that began in 1981 to replace the F-15 and the F-16, flying over Syria in 2014 is hardly a cause for celebration or a thing justifies its development hell. It should be a sign that this has been a very long and unnecessary program.

The F-22 is an ideological weapon and its program has only really served experimentation. I mean, when funds start to get redirected towards the maintenance of equipment that is still being developed, we need to step back and take a better look.

Click to expand...

You prove you know very little about air tactics. Why would you use the F-22 when you have no need because there are other assets that can do the job? Let me put it in terms you will understand. You have an enemy soldier holed up in a field of grass would you call in a tank to take him out when you can do the same thing with a couple of men? Same thing with aircraft why use an asset you don't need when you have other assets you can use.

Do you think an F-15 can penetrate North Korea's massive air defense network? Of course not you would use stealth bombers to do the job while the stealth fighters flew cover!

Old Sarge said:

Why would you use the F-22 when you have no need because there are other assets that can do the job?

Click to expand...

Other assets that were and are too few because far too much money has been spent on a Lamborghini that the military doesn't need.

You avoided the point.

- Air superiority was accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan in quick fashion without the F-22. It was accomplished with existing and working technology and through our pilots. What came next was a lack of ground-support. That is the point.

Using this argument of "air superiority" has long been bunk. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines establish that without the F-22. Yet, for years, the Air Force has argued that it is needed to establish air support. This doesn't make sense. And constantly defending the gross program over theories of unlikely future wars is just as absurd. It has nothing to do with "air tactics" and everything to do with the ideology of a toy. You seem to be hung up on your pride for it. You don't have to be. And just think, this whole thing began in the 1980s to fight Soviet Migs. Time for a new dream and one less expensive and wasteful. The problem is that the Air Force has traveled far too long down the road simply to scrap it.


You are the expert here. Name an existing plane that carries more payload and more fuel. I mean, doesn't the F-16 fit this? It is relatively low-cost; and has proven itself in air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting. The troop has far more use for an A-10 than an F-22. And as far as air-to-air, we have the F35 program going on. Seeking to replace the F-15 with the F-22 or F/A-22 or F-22A (all while in development) is like the Marines and the Army seeking to replace the M16 with a laser blaster.

MSgt said:

Other assets that were and are too few because far too much money has been spent on a Lamborghini that the military doesn't need.

You avoided the point.

- Air superiority was accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan in quick fashion without the F-22. It was accomplished with existing and working technology and through our pilots. What came next was a lack of ground-support. That is the point.

Using this argument of "air superiority" has long been bunk. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines establish that without the F-22. Yet, for years, the Air Force has argued that it is needed to establish air support. This doesn't make sense. And constantly defending the gross program over theories of unlikely future wars is just as absurd. It has nothing to do with "air tactics" and everything to do with the ideology of a toy. You seem to be hung up on your pride for it. You don't have to be. And just think, this whole thing began in the 1980s to fight Soviet Migs. Time for a new dream and one less expensive and wasteful. The problem is that the Air Force has traveled far too long down the road simply to scrap it.


You are the expert here. Name an existing plane that carries more payload and more fuel. I mean, doesn't the F-16 fit this? It is relatively low-cost; and has proven itself in air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting. The troop has far more use for an A-10 than an F-22. And as far as air-to-air, we have the F35 program going on. Seeking to replace the F-15 with the F-22 or F/A-22 or F-22A (all while in development) is like the Marines and the Army seeking to replace the M16 with a laser blaster.

Click to expand...

I'm not avoiding anything sport! You keep saying Iraq and Afghanistan, One the F-22 didn't enter service till 2005 the Iraq war ended in 2003 kind of hard to use a weapons system that hasn't entered service yet! As to Afghanistan there was no Air Force to defeat plus that was prior to the Raptor also. Sorry all you can complain about is the cost.

Old Sarge said:

I'm not avoiding anything sport! You keep saying Iraq and Afghanistan, One the F-22 didn't enter service till 2005 the Iraq war ended in 2003 kind of hard to use a weapons system that hasn't entered service yet! As to Afghanistan there was no Air Force to defeat plus that was prior to the Raptor also. Sorry all you can complain about is the cost.

Click to expand...

We'll just pretend that your embarrassing assertion above was just an accident. The program exists because it was sold as a ground support weapon of the future. This would be a part of the history that I provided you. And when the F-22A finally saw "service" in 2005, it serviced nothing and nobody, even as the war in Iraq went on and on and troops had to wait on the limited amount of assets that were of use. It sure looked purty on airfields far from combat zones though, didn't it?

As I have clearly written and backed up over the course of a few posts, there is much to complain about with this program. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but the same tired excuses for waste. Air dominance over Iraq was secured without the F-22, thus the argument for its need is rubbish. Furthermore, the price tag alone makes the thing too costly to risk in combat. It flies over Syria because it is safe. "Sorry" all you have is your thirty-six year old ideology of the future and an obnoxious love affair for an unnecessary toy. "No Air Force to beat" pretty much sums up what this program is good for.

Good conversation here.

As to air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan, this civilian would like to know who on earth in those theaters even had an air force to threaten our superiority?

MSgt said:

We'll just pretend that your embarrassing assertion above was just an accident. The program exists because it was sold as a ground support weapon of the future. This would be a part of the history that I provided you. And when the F-22A finally saw "service" in 2005, it serviced nothing and nobody, even as the war in Iraq went on and on and troops had to wait on the limited amount of assets that were of use. It sure looked purty on airfields far from combat zones though, didn't it?

As I have clearly written and backed up over the course of a few posts, there is much to complain about with this program. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but the same tired excuses for waste. Air dominance over Iraq was secured without the F-22, thus the argument for its need is rubbish. Furthermore, the price tag alone makes the thing too costly to risk in combat. It flies over Syria because it is safe. "Sorry" all you have is your thirty-six year old ideology of the future and an obnoxious love affair for an unnecessary toy. "No Air Force to beat" pretty much sums up what this program is good for.

Click to expand...

You are an embarrassmentioned to all Marines. You sound like the typical whiny liberal. I am so glad you are smarter than the generals when it comes to needed equipment. Good by fool!

Thoreau72 said:

Good conversation here.

As to air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan, this civilian would like to know who on earth in those theaters even had an air force to threaten our superiority?

Click to expand...

This the kind of argument that happens when someone reads something and instantly becomes an expert.

Old Sarge said:

This the kind of argument that happens when someone reads something and instantly becomes an expert.

Click to expand...

Gimme a break Sarge, I said I was a civilian. If I thought I were an expert, I would have claimed to know the answer.

For one who watched it all on public media, I'm just curious as to who represented any sort of challenge to US air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand things are rather different in Syria for the last 2 years, but Saddam's air force was non-existent, like his navy. I'm pretty sure the Taliban had no air force.

Thoreau72 said:

Gimme a break Sarge, I said I was a civilian. If I thought I were an expert, I would have claimed to know the answer.

For one who watched it all on public media, I'm just curious as to who represented any sort of challenge to US air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand things are rather different in Syria for the last 2 years, but Saddam's air force was non-existent, like his navy. I'm pretty sure the Taliban had no air force.

Click to expand...

Sorry you misunderstood I wasn't referring to you but the mud Marine. I apologize for the confusion.

Thoreau72 said:

Good conversation here.

Click to expand...

Not really. Aside from an ideology of how cool the F-22A is, "nu-uh" sums up his posts.

Thoreau72 said:

As to air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan, this civilian would like to know who on earth in those theaters even had an air force to threaten our superiority?

Click to expand...

That's just it. Iraqi air power was immediately obliterated. What didn't get into the air was found buried in sand. That was Saddam's way of hiding them from destruction. Some he actually flew to Iran, where Iranians merely confiscated them. Thus, the F-22 was not necessary at all to gain superiority even if the then twenty-two year old program was available in 2003. And when the F-22A was finally introduced to "service" in 2005, troops in Iraq still could do nothing with it as air strikes request stood in line.

Iran and the Arab states all have an Air Force. The Arab states are allies and Iran flies only within its boundaries (something Saddam did not do). So they don't matter. But even if we did go to war with, say, Egypt, we would obliterate the Air Force largely as it was parked on the ground. Dreams of F-22A glory would stay a dream.


And I have a prior post about what happened in Cope India in 2004. Our pilots did not perform at all as expected. It was found that they relied too much on instruments that were shut down prior to the exercise. Instead of addressing this need for better training as pilots, the Air Force used it to argue that the pilots needed the F/A-22. The hole in their argument was that our pilots faced other pilots with similar to like equipment. We should not be relying on toys to be better than the rest and doing so presents a great lack of confidence n what our pilots have proven to be able to do in the past. In the other words, the F-22A experiment came at the expense of our pilots.

Old Sarge said:

You are an embarrassmentioned to all Marines. You sound like the typical whiny liberal. I am so glad you are smarter than the generals when it comes to needed equipment. Good by fool!

Click to expand...

Say's the guy who thinks the Iraq War ended in 2003. Of course, the Air Force really hasn't been in the war, so your confusion may be sincere.

Ah yes. The good 'ole personal insult to the career cliche because a post or two hurt his feelings. You should practice on your emotions. The weak always lash out and want everyone but themselves to be the embarrassment. Let me help you with another uncomfortable piece of truth... The F-22A program represents the Air Force trying to define its relevance since 9/11, beyond transportation for those actually in the war.