Back in November, the East Valley Tribune and Ahwatukee Foothill News published an op-ed that I wrote in support of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In that op-ed, I noted the critical importance the F-35 program plays to the national security of the United States. After meeting with Arizonians who are involved in the F-35’s development, I learned of their concern over program cuts and the unforeseen consequences that may result from debate over program reductions. For the sake of our national and economic security, these conversations need to stop.
The F-35 is America’s next fifth-generation, multi-role fighter that our military leaders have designated to replace our military’s current arsenal of ageing F-16 and F-18 fighters. The F-35 is a pragmatic approach to modernizing America’s air superiority by using the same platform to serve the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. The highly advanced capabilities of the F-35 will provide out troops in the air, sea and land with the technology and situational awareness to get the job done and safely return home.
A recent program update proves that 2011 was a banner year for the program. Of the 872 test flights and 6,622 test points the F-35 was to endure in 2011, the program surpassed those goals by flying 972 test flights and completing 7,823 test points. These flights and test points ensure that the plane is strong and reliable through hundreds of challenging scenarios. The results prove that the F-35 program is maturing faster than anticipated – which is a good problem to have when working with advanced military technology.
Despite these overachievements, we have seen a lot of change in America’s political landscape. Most significantly, the deficit reducing “supercommittee” failed, forcing $600 billion in mandatory cuts from Department of Defense programs. During negotiations leading up to the supercommittee, there was a groundswell of support for full program funding and members of the committee were prepared to defend the F-35 because they recognized it’s importance to America.
Unfortunately, because the committee failed, the program is once again under debate. As evidence, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently confirmed that he aims to cut Defense Department spending on next generation weapons programs which could include the F-35. While no one believes that the F-35 will be cancelled, small businesses right here in Arizona are watching closely to see if the Pentagon will uphold their commitment to program funding, since the small business community has capitalized their production lines in anticipation of program growth.
The bottom-line is that we cannot allow political expedience to dampen the progress of the F-35. The program is deeply connected to our economy and cuts would send ripple effects across a nation. The programs suppliers, consisting of 1,300 independent companies across the United States and supporting 127,000 jobs, have the most to lose. If those parts are no longer needed in the quantities that were originally requested, then those suppliers will be unable to meet payroll and the rising jobless claim rates in the United States will see a significant uptick.
The security of our nation and the protection of our troops are important to all of us. It is our job to ensure that the men and women in the armed services are armed with globally superior technology and protection. America’s ingenuity and industrial infrastructure can deliver that superiority, and we Americans can make sure that the program and our troops are fully supported. The F-35 is not just a budget line item. It is a line item that represents real people and business, and we need to let our elected officials in Washington know that we support the F-35.
Lt. Col. Wendy Rogers, USAF (retired) was one of the first 100 women pilots in today’s Air Force. In 2010, she ran and narrowly lost a bid for the Arizona State Senate in Democrat-leaning Legislative District 17. She owns and operates a Tempe-based office complex as well as a home inspection business with 10 fulltime employees operating in four counties. Lt Col Rogers and her retired Air Force husband have two adult ASU-grad children and live in Arizona’s brand new Congressional District 9.
The F-35 is the worst kind of pork there is because it is pork which endangers the defense of The United States.
In the air to air role, the F-35 is inferior to the best fighters of the competition, including Russia and China. It has a lower top speed, a lower rate of climb and a bigger turning radius. This means that if it comes down to a knife fight, the F-35 is road kill.
Parts for the F-35 are manufactured in at least nine different countries, instead of being made entirely in the U. S.. The biggest problem in that regard is not supply or quality control but rather cobbling together a security system which works effectively.
The F-35 sprang from a flawed concept of attempting to use one airframe for multiple configurations. The net result is an aircraft which is a Jack of all trades, master of none. Our pilots deserve better.
Can’t argue with what you lay out, CA.
Good to read more on this subject as it’s something I’ve been meaning to learn more of.
As an argument based on history…this wouldn’t mark the first time we’ve put forth an aircraft that’s somewhat inferior to others. Yet, because of training and tactics, our pilots were still extremely successful and proved to be superior despite the shortcoming.
Not a factor in this?
I think that one of the fundamental problems with this aircraft in air superiority operations, Rob, is that it’s only edge in self-defense is superior BVR (beyond visual range) weapons systems. That amounts to putting all of our eggs in one basket.
What if an adversary develops effective countermeasures to our BVR weapons systems? What if an adversary develops superior BVR weapons systems?
If an opposing aircraft, with superior performance, were able to engage at close range, the F-35 would be toast. Why? It can’t out run the best opposing aircraft. It can’t out climb them and it can’t out turn them. In other words, it can’t break off an engagement at will and it can’t remain in a close engagement very long without becoming a clay pigeon.
The net result would be that the F-35 would have to be supported by aircraft with superior flight performance characteristics, aircraft like those it seeks to replace.
Some might say that the helmet mounted targeting system and good off axis air to air missles make up for the lack of tight turning ability. However, the Russians had a helmet mounted targeting system for the Su-27 thirty years ago. So what do you think happens when two opposing aircraft both have helmet mounted targeting systems, both have good off axis air to air missles but one can turn inside of the other?
All of this stems from the insane thinking that fighter aircraft are “weapons platforms” and that a pilot in the aircraft isn’t necessary. We had a somewhat similar mindset at the beginning of the Korean war when we had stopped teaching pilots ACM (air combat maneuvers) or “dogfighting”. Our kill ratio dropped like a rock. ACM instruction was reinstituted and our kill ratio went back up again.
Nothing is as fleeting and uncertain as military technological superiority. To ask our pilots to fly into air to air combat in an aircraft with inferior performance capability, relying exclusively on superior weapons systems, is foolhardy, short sighted and dangerous. What do you fall back on if there is a weapons system failure or if things don’t go as planned? What if any form of the unexpected arises?
It isn’t a question of whether or not we are going to get our butts kicked because of this. It’s only a question of where, when and how much of a disaster it will be.
As regards pilots, U. S. pilots have been much better trained than those of countries in whose airspace we have operated. However, the best pilots of the Russian Federation are every bit as good as ours in handling their aircraft. In addition, countries which purchase aircraft from the Russian Federation don’t get all of the bells and whistles. We are careful about how the combat aircraft which we sell are equipped also, depending on the buyer.
As a side note, around the time of the Gulf War, U. S. fighter pilots were leaving the military in droves to fly commercial. The reason was that they weren’t being given sufficient practice time in the air to keep their skills honed. As one pilot stated, “Either you are on top of the aircraft or the aircraft is on top of you.” Fighter aircraft are not designed to fly straight and level with no hand on the stick. They are designed to readily break out of straight and level flight so they have to be actively “flown” at all times. If we try to cut corners or try to save a buck by cutting back on training time in the air, we are playing Russian Roulette.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, Rob, it was the least I could do… so I did the least I could, LOL!
I’m amused by your descriptor at the end of your post, Wendy. How is losing by 7% a narrow loss? Also, D17 has more independents than Democrats, so you should change that sentence to “independent-leaning Legislative District 17.” You fight a good fight and worked hard in 2010, and I commend you for that, but the fact is your policy positions were too extreme for the District.
We need to replace the F15 & 16 which are now 30 years old. While not perfect, I support moving to the F-35. And from an Arizona perspective, we really could use the F-35 here at Luke. Too bad Lobbyist Matt Salmon had to lead the charge against that happening. Not because he didn’t believe the the merits of the upgrade in our airforce capability…nope, he sold out to represent the City of El Mirage over concerns about noise.
The results – the F-35 was NOT committed to Luke. We still have a chance but we leaders who will fight for the F-35 and Luke. There is NO BETTER training facility in the states than Luke AFB. With 350 days of year of sunshine, bombing ranges within easy distance and great society surroundign the base, we’re the perfect spot to host the training and main support division.
The F-35 is not merely “not perfect”, it is a disaster. Issues regarding the fate of Luke AFB take a back seat to our national security. Get your priorities right.
Sorry to say that the facts are against Luke getting the F-35. The TAC Ranges are perfect for training, but due to population sprawl and numerous key show stoppers such as schools, hospitals, and outdoor activity, its simply not a viable candidate for such a big population center. Sorry! But, Gila-Bend with its great runway and proximity to the range complex makes it a perfect candidate.
The fact is, the F-35 is a hopelessly compromised aircraft. The key requirement was having V-STOL capability, which required both a lift fan and additional flight controls that the land and carrier-based versions (A and C respectively) did not need. As we recently found out, the carrier-based version CAN’T LAND WITH ITS TAILHOOK, which means it won’t be able to operate from…carriers. Good thing the US Navy has the F/A-18E/F/G models in service! The Royal Navy may be forced to purchase the B version instead…if it ever enters service.
True, the A model may turn out to be a salvageable platform, but at what cost? Does it’s increased capabilities justify its high price compared to the F-16s and F-15s it will replace? On paper, its an amazing aircraft but I don’t see how it can translate potential into real-world performance at an affordable cost. While I don’t think the F-35 will be a complete dud like the TFX/F-111, it may resemble the F-4 in that it was designed to fill multiple roles and was mediocre at all of them.
Col. Tom Boyd (USAF) spearheaded the effort to design a simple, lightweight fighter that would replace the overly complex F-4 and compliment the capable yet complex F-15. The F-16 and F-18 eventually came out of that competition and both have served our military (and our allies) well. Simple, reliable, and (relatively) inexpensive seems to be a good way to go. The F-35 may be a bridge too far in its effort to incorporate many technologies (integrated stealth, supercruise, integrated weapons queueing, etc.) into one platform. I hope it does not break an already stressed DoD budget and cripple our ability to purchase weapons that already work and are being delivered on-budget.
The V-STOL puts out so much heat that there was danger of weakening the structure supporting the carrier deck. They tried insulating mats but the Skipper’s aren’t convinced and are unwilling to have the deck of their carriers collapse.
The most interesting thing about this article isn’t Wendy Rogers’ opinion on the F-35. The most interesting thing is that she explicitly mentions that she is in CD-9. I don’t know why she would do that unless she was at least thinking about the possibility of running for Congress.
Am I right in thinking that part of what the pro F-35 camp hangs their hat on is that it is nearly ready to go and a next generation fighter other than the F-35 would take too long?
Seems to me that the development cycle of these sophisticated aircraft is a huge strategic problem for US security. I know there is no real pressure to respond to a real threat in competing air superiority right now, but just wait until there is a problem with China. They have the tech know how and resources to give us problems. They also control the majority of the supply of rare earth minerals that are needed in hight tech manufacturing. And dont forget that re-hashed aircraft carrier that they are now using. I know that one is a revamped old Russian platform, but it set a precedent that they intend to project air power. What are we gonna do?
Very prerceptive of you, Fred! You have hit upon one of the extremely serious and dangerous issues regarding the F-35.
The time from the concept of a new combat aircraft to entry into service is so long that if you get behind the curve, you may never catch up. The F-35 could cause us to lose the edge permanently, although I think that if we pulled out all of the stops, and money, we would catch up. We are, after all, The United States of America.
It is a mistake of enormous proportions to keep pushing the F-35. It should be scrapped and our money put into viable, state of the art aircraft, each dedicated to a particular task and the best there is at performing that particular essential task.
Despite the fact that the public doesn’t see any “real pressure to respond to a real threat in competing for air superiority right now” doesn’t mean that that pressure and threat do not exist. Because of development time, we must continually anticipate to stay on or ahead of the curve.
Your concerns about the Chinese are well-founded. They are not so much a direct threat to the U. S. but are essentially instituting what are called “asymmetrical threats”. They have us where the hair is short financially because they have bought up our debt. As you have correctly stated, they essentially control the supply of rare earth minerals. If we do something they don’t like, all they have to do is squeeze.
Here’s the really big question. How did the Chinese get in the position they are currently in? The answer is that traitorous Americans put them there, just as they are putting us behind the curve with the F-35. Let me provide you with just one concrete example of this.
Under the Clinton administration, specialized turbine engines were sold to the Chinese without any approval from our military, security agencies or the Department of State. What’s the big deal? The big deal is that they were the special type of turbine engines used in ICBM’s and the Chinese didn’t have that technology until we sold it to them. This happened over the strenuous objections of those functioning as watchdogs over our military technology dissemination.
The growth of the power of China is a direct result of U. S. foreign policy. We have aided and abetted their rise in power and not because of any concerns for the well being of U. S. citizens.
We now see John Huntsman with his hat in the ring as a potential presidential candidate. Huntsman speaks fluent Chinese, served as Ambassador to China under the Obama administration and even went so far as to adopt a Chinese girl rather than an American one. His brother does business with China.
On the campaign trail, Jerry Lewis expressed concern regarding how the Chinese view Arizona. From where did such a far out concern come regarding an Arizona State Senate contest?
From our financial status to our supply of essential raw materials to our trade status and now even to our military superiority, we are being sold out by so called “Americans”. There is a crisis coming. We will survive and prevail but it ain’t gonna be pretty!
CANT YOU UNDERSTAND WENDY??? WERE BROKE! NO MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!