Five sailors charged in F-35 crash video leak.

A screencap from the leaked video. Military.com

Five sailors have been charged for leaking video of an F-35 crashing on the USS Carl Vinson. Military.com. An ensign and four chief petty officers have been charged under Article 92, failure to follow a lawful order. The video was the third to go viral in relation to the crash. The video shows the plane coming in hot and then exploding in a major fireball. 

My Comment:

This is just a quick follow up to a post I made earlier in the month. As expected the people responsible for leaking this video have been charged with crimes. It was pretty obvious that was going to happen as given how the video was taken there were only a few people that could have been responsible. 

I honestly don't know what the sailors were thinking. Leaking video like this is never a good idea for your military career, but in this case especially. This incident was extremely embarrassing for the US Navy and not one that they wanted to deal with during times of high tensions between the United States and Russia/China. 

I fully expect that these sailors will no longer have a career and will probably end up in prison. I am no expert on military law, but I can't imagine that these sailors get away with this with a slap on the wrist. My guess is that they will serve time in prison and then be dishonorably discharged. 

I do wonder if anyone will be charged to releasing the other video and the photograph that showed the F-35 in the water. It's possible that they were not the same people that were charged in this incident. That means there could be further charged related this this air crash. 

 

 

New video showing the F-35 crash has leaked online.

 

An F-35 landing. Warzone/The Drive. 

New video has emerged showing the recent crash of an F-35 on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson. Warzone/The Drive. Video had leaked previously that showed the lead up to the crash and pictures emerged showing the aftermath of the crash, but this video shows the crash itself. The video appears to be cell phone video of the crash from the Pilot's Landing Aid Television and the Island Camera Room. 

The new footage.

The original footage. 

My Comment:

This is just a quick update to a previous post. I don't have too much to add other than the video from the carrier was pretty crazy. That plane should have waved off and when it failed to do so it crashed catastrophically. 

What is interesting is that these videos are leaking. Doing so would probably end the career of anyone who was proven to have released these videos. That tells me that either the Navy doesn't really care or that the sailors involved don't. Either way that's not great leadership and it shows how things are going in the Navy today. 

With that being said, I am impressed at how quickly the sailors went to put out the fire that was left over from the crash. Given how dangerous the situation was they worked quickly to put it out. Fire on carriers is no joke, just look at the USS Forrestal fire. 

I also have to say that it was a miracle that nobody died. The pilot managed to eject safely but all the crewmen on the deck were in danger as well. A few people were injured but nobody was killed, thankfully. 

Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-air missiles is causing a major controversy.

Russians walk by S-400 missiles in Volgograd. Reuters.

Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-air missiles is causing a major dispute with their US allies. Reuters. Turkey has threaten reciprocal action if the US imposes sanctions in the wake of the purchase. In addition to the sanctions, if Turkey accepts delivery of the system, the US would push Turkey out of the F-35 program. NATO says the system would be incomparable with their air defenses while the US says that the system would be a threat to the F-35 program. Turkey seems determined to keep the missiles though and have pointed out that it is too late to cancel the order. 

My Comment:

Turkey yet again proving that they are a poor ally. The entire reason NATO exists is to counter Russia, not buy their missiles. If Turkey were to use these missiles in a war it would probably be against Russian air craft so the purchase makes little sense in the first place. And it's not like the US and other governments couldn't sell a comparable system to the Turks. 

Are the S-400's a threat to US interests? I think so. Both the F-35 and the older F-22's have a big advantage over the Russians as their radar and missile systems are unfamiliar with the planes. They have gathered some data in the Syrian conflict but giving this tech to the Turks seems like a sure way to gather more info on the advanced fighter jets. 

America also doesn't want Turkey propping up Russia's weapon industry. Part of that is due to a desire to not compete with them, America makes a lot of money on weapons sales as well. But Russia is under sanctions for their behavior in Ukraine and elsewhere and this weapons sale is a major middle finger to that effort. 

Will the sale go through? Almost certainly. Turkey is being extremely stubborn here and would take it as a major matter of pride if they had to turn the weapons away. It would be a major loss of face for them and they won't allow that. 

I will say that they do have a point though. These weapons are already paid for. They aren't getting their money back if they cancel delivery and have very little reason to not take delivery, other than US objections. They never should have ordered the S-400 system in the first place but that's neither here nor there. 

I do think that the US-Turkey alliance is probably on the way out. Turkey has been a very poor ally as of late and helped let the ISIS situation in Syria and Iraq get out of control. They also hate the Kurds, who have been a great ally against ISIS, even when not compared with how terrible Turkey has been. They have taken a more authoritarian and religious path as well that is not compatible with US values. I would love to see them treated the same way we treat Iran and completely kicked out of NATO and any other US alliance. 

F-35 Stealth fighter overflies the White House as President Trump watches.

Presidents Donald Trump and Andrzej Duda of Poland watch the F-35 overfly the White House with their wives. ABC News/Reuters.

In a major display an F-35 Lightning II overflew the White House while President Trump and President Andrzei Duda of Poland watched on with their wives. ABC News. The F-35 model was the Marine B model which is capable of short take offs and landings. The overflight was an extremely rare example of US military power. Poland has bought 32 of the F-35's to replace their aging Soviet era fighter jets. The sale comes as stronger ties are being established with Poland and a new deployment of 1000 troops to the US ally. 

From the rooftop of the Kennedy Center... pic.twitter.com/VICqSkSELu

— Kevin Baron (@DefenseBaron) June 12, 2019

There it is...the F-35 fighter jet coming up over the West Wing, heading north over Washington DC. Very loud and low pic.twitter.com/pnJlHZdqCK

— Karen Travers (@karentravers) June 12, 2019

My Comment:
I've been a critic of the F-35 but even I have to admit those videos were pretty cool. The F-35B is a pretty amazing plane even if it isn't the best fighter. It was pretty clear that President Trump was putting on a show for his Polish friends.

It honestly reminds me of the Harrier. I had seen that jet fly a lot back in the day when I used to work at airshows. Though the F-35B isn't quite as capable of hovering like the Harrier is, it's still amazing to see a fighter jet flying so slow like that. I haven't seen the F-35 in flight but I have seen pretty much every other fighter jet and bomber that currently flies in the US Air Force.

As for Poland it seems pretty clear that they are trying to strengthen our relationship with them. Poland has a long history of being bullied and mistreated by their neighbors and want a strong military and alliances to counter threats from Russia. Poland has been a very good ally to the United States deploying troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and generally being good friends. Though I'm not a huge fan of the F-35 it is a very good purchase for Poland.

This was a pretty good media event for President Trump. Though I am sure that someone will complain about it, it was impressive enough that those voices will likely be ignored. It will play well with his supporters and I am guessing Poland will love it as well. Hell, even ABC News wasn't able to sneak anything negative in their report. It's a pretty good day for President Trump.

US Air Force uses the F-35A in combat for the first time against ISIS.

A F-35A Lightning II. UPI/US Air Force handout.

The US Air Force has used the F-35A in combat for the first time in a mission targeted ISIS holdouts in Iraq. UPI. The two F-35A's were used to target an ISIS tunnel complex and weapons cache. The Marines used the short take off variant, the F-35B in combat last year in Afghanistan. The F-35 has come under criticism for overspending and inefficiency. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post to acknowledge that the Air Force has finally used the F-35A in it's primary role as a strike fighter. It doesn't seem to have been a mission that the F-15 or F-16 couldn't have accomplished but it is good that we are finally using these planes. 

The actual mission itself is fairly standard. An ISIS cave and weapons cache isn't a hugely important target, especially considering how ISIS has largely been destroyed. It's a mission that had to be done for sure, but it's only notable because it was the first strike the F-35A did. 

I still think that the F-35 is a huge waste of money. It's not anywhere as good as the F-22 in terms of dog fighting and both the F-15 and F-16 are better bomb trucks. It doesn't do anything great but it is a jack of all trades. If we hadn't ordered a billion of them they would be ok I guess, but they are the backbone of our armed forces now. 

US Navy declares the F-35C ready for combat.

A Navy F-35C. US Navy/Task and Purpose. 

The US Navy has declared the F-35C ready for combat. Task and Purpose/San Diego Tribune. The Navy's F-35C version of the plane is the 2nd to be rated for combat after the Marines' F-35B variant, which has already finished a combat deployment. It is unclear when the F-35C will have their first combat deployment but it should be soon. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post about the F-35. After billions of dollars and many setbacks some of the planes are finally joining frontline units. The Marines were first but now the Navy has finally joined them. Right now it's just one carrier that is going to be carrying these fighters, the USS Carl Vinson. 

The Marines version of the plane has been used effectively in Afghanistan, though that's a pretty easy combat environment for the planes. They did not have to face any opposition from enemy planes or air defenses, so they haven't been truly tested. 

On the other hand, the Israelis have used F-35's in combat in Syria and they had some success. In a highly dangerous environment like Syria they managed to complete their missions. That shows that, at the very least, the F-35's are decent bomb trucks. 

I still have concerns about the F-35's ability to dogfight. I have seen reports of simulations and combat exercises where the F-35 is defeated by F-15's and F-16's in dogfights. In a standoff fight the F-35 is fine but if it ever gets into a closer range turning dogfight the F-35 is at a disadvantage. 

Still, despite the problems of the F-35, it is good that we are finally getting some use out of the billions of dollars we have spent for the program. Given how many problems the program has had, it almost seemed that the plane would be in devolpment years after it was already obsolete. 

The F-35 has been used in combat by American forces for the first time.

A F-35 at an airshow. AFP.

The F-35 has been used in combat by American forces for the first time in Afghanistan. AFP. The planes used were the Marine F-35B VTOL variant launched from the Amphibious Assault Ship, Essex. The F-35 has first been used in combat in Syria by the Israelis but this is the first strike conducted by America. The F-35 program has come under massive criticism due to high costs and performance issues. 

My Comment:

With all the other news outlets exclusively covering the Kavanaugh hearings I thought I could write about something else. I don't really have any more to add to the Kavanaugh story so this post about the F-35 will have to do instead. 

We were, of course, beaten to the punch. Israel managed to launch the first combat mission for the F-35 in May of this year. They struck targets in Syria with the plane and all accounts state it was a successful mission.

Indeed, that missions was a much better test of the F-35 than this mission in Afghanistan. In Syria there were air to air defenses and hostile jets that could have intercepted the F-35. I don't know if the mission succeeded because the fighter was able to evade those defenses or because Syria and Russia didn't want to provoke an incident with Israel, but either way those fighters were in much more danger than the F-35's that struck in Afghanistan. 

It is good to see the F-35 finally being used by the government that paid for it. The F-35 was a huge boondoggle and there are real criticism of the platform, but we are kind of stuck with them now. We might as well get some use out of them. 

The actual attack in Afghanistan was not very notable otherwise. It is only one of hundreds of strikes targeting ISIS and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. It is only notable because it was the first time the F-35 was used. 

That being said it sounds like the attack was a success. Had it not been it would have been an extreme embarrassment for everyone involved. How that would even happen would be beyond me. I guess their could have been a crash or something but it's not like there are any Afghan air defenses.  

F-35 sees first combat missions in Israel.

An Israeli F-35. BBC/IDF.

The controversial F-35 has flown its first combat missions in Israel. BBC. The Chief of Israel's Air Force said that the F-35 had been in combat on "two different fronts" but didn't elaborate on which countries that could be. The F-35 has been criticized for being so expensive and has not yet served in combat for the nation that developed the fighter, the United States. Israel has 50 of the fighters and may order an additional 25. The use of the new fighter is seen as a message to Iran. 

My Comment:

I'm kind of surprised that it took this long for the F-35 to make it into combat. I guess I shouldn't be since the F-22 didn't get into combat until 2014. But given the respective role for both fighters you would think that the F-35 would have made it into combat a lot sooner. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and wasn't needed until we got into the contested air space of Syria. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter and one of those roles, a bomb truck, would have been fine for Syria. 

I think it is fairly embarrassing for the United States that Israel was the one that used the F-35 first. We developed the fighter and paid for most of it but we haven't used it yet. And even though Israel is a close ally, they aren't Americans. Given how much the American taxpayer has paid for this plane it really should have been us that used it first. We have plenty of targets in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan we could have used. 

I'm not sure what target the F-35 hit. The Air Force chief said that they had missions on two different fronts but didn't say what those fronts were. The obvious one is Syria where Israel has conducted several major airstrikes recently. The only other place I can think of is the Palestinian territories, which given current events, makes a lot of sense. 

The F-35 is a good choice for the kind of environment that you would find in Syria. Syria has some air defenses left and their Russian allies are well equipped. The F-35's have stealth capabilities and would be able to avoid Syrian air defenses. Plus if they had tangled up with Syrian fighters they would have been able to shoot them down easily. Their most advanced fighter is the MIG-29 and I doubt their pilots would be of the same quality as the Israelis. 

Still, the criticism of the F-35 doesn't have much to do with the kind of mission they did in Syria. Most of the criticism is on the extreme cost of the plane. The rest is about how it can't seem to win dogfights when compared to even current generation fighters. Nobody disagrees that the plane can drop bombs and launch missiles but as a dogfighter the F-35 has come under criticism.  

It is good though that the F-35 finally got some combat experience. Hopefully the Israelis are nice and let us see detailed information about how the F-35 performed so we can learn from their experience. At the very least it seems that the Israeli strikes were successful as I am sure we would have heard if one was shot down or even damaged.  

Should Donald Trump's administration restart F-22 production?

The F-22 Raptor. US Air Force photo. 

In a piece in the National Interest, Peter Layton argues that it might be a good idea for President elect Donald Trump to restart production of the F-22.  Donald Trump has vowed to increase the military budget and by doing so he could gain more "bang for the buck" by restarting production of the F-22. US dominance in air power is on the decline, due in large part to the lackluster F-35 and the cuts to the production of the F-22 due to budget cuts. The F-35 program, bloated and over budget, is unlikely to come fully into service until up to a decade from now. The aircraft, originally designed as a supplement to the F-22 is now being asked to take up it's role and the plane has not met those requirements. If production was restarted new F-22's could be in service in as little as two years. Restarting the F-22 program would also create new jobs.

My Comment:

I don't think it very likely that the F-22 is going to resume production anytime soon. Sure, if there was some kind of national emergency or massive war breaking out I could see it happening but right now it seems unlikely. I doubt that Donald Trump will raise the budget enough that we could keep ordering F-35's and produce F-22's at the same time. Both programs are obscenely expensive and even though the F-22 offers more bang for the buck, the F-35 is still cheaper (in theory if not in practice). 

Of course we could save some money if we just cut the F-35 program to the bone. We are going to be stuck with a large number of the fighters no matter what, but there is no reason at this point to continue to digging ourselves a hole with the fighter. It just can't do what we want it to do. It is supposed to be a bomb truck that has some ability to defend itself, not a front line fighter tasked with clearing the skies. 

But we won't ever get rid of the F-35. Why? Because there are so many congressional districts and even international considerations involved with the production of the plane. Getting rid of it, or even slowing down production, is politically impossible, probably even for Donald Trump. Too many palms are getting greased, too many people are getting rich, too many jobs are at stake, and too many politicians have pork to deliver.  

If it were up to me I would cancel the current F-35 program for the Air Force at least. But I am not sure about the other branches. The Marines desperately need a replacement for the Harrier jump jet. Though cool, the jet is hopelessly out of date and not what the Marines need these days. The F-35B is probably good enough for their needs and is honestly an improvement over the Harrier. For what the Marines need it for, close air support and some defense for their landing ships, I think the F-35B is probably good enough.

With most of the Air Force's F-35's canceled I would move production to the F-22's and build enough to them to ensure air superiority. The 380 or so originally ordered (counting the 187 currently in service) would probably be enough. The F-35's role as a bomb truck that can defend itself if need be can be played by upgraded 5th generation fighter jets for the time being until a suitable replacement for the F-35 can be found. We would also have the 180 or so F-35's already built to play around with if we needed fighters right away, we just don't need to build any more of them for the Air Force at least.

The Navy would present more of a problem then the Air Force variants though. The Navy doesn't have an equivalent to the F-22 to launch from carriers. They only have the F-35C and the F-18 Super Hornets. I like the Super Hornet but it's not a game changer like the F-22 is. The Navy needs a stealth plane and I think that the F-35 is going to be that for now. I do think that there should be a new program for developing a true air superiority fighter for the Navy. 

No matter what though, the article is right, we are losing air superiority. Both the Russians and the Chinese are upgrading their jets and anti-air capabilities. We have to keep up with that and the F-35 isn't good enough. Indeed, the Chinese's J-31 is essentially the same aircraft as the F-35, only with a 2nd engine and a lot less of the problems. If the Russians and Chinese do catch up it would be a dark day for US aviation and could cost us a potential war with either nation. 

I do hope that Donald Trump can somehow find his way to solving this mess. Trump has a large hill to climb as our military procurement is a travesty. We have several wasteful and inefficient programs just like the F-35. The other one that jumps out at me is the Littoral Combat Ships, but they are far from the only examples. I honestly don't know how someone would fix a problem like this, but here's hoping that Trump can at least make a go of it... 

The F-35 is a huge threat to national security. National Review.

A F-35B dropping a bomb. Official Navy photo. 

The F-35 program is such a failure that it could be a threat to the entire defense industry. National Review. With a projected total lifetime cost of $1.5 trillion, we are not getting what we are paying for. The F-35 is slower then the retired F-14 Tomcat, has less range then the A-6 Intruder and the turning performance of an F-4 Phantom. The F-35 program begun in 1994, but 20 years later we still don't have a combat capable airplane. Once hailed as a cheaper alternative to more expensive planes, the cost of the F-35 per unit is approaching the cost of the F-22, but without the capabilities the older fighter has. The manufacturing process for the F-35 is also full of problems, with only 40% of the processes meeting standards. As the F-35 has spent 20 years in development, our competitors have developed countermeasures. The F-35 is designed for long range combat and is dependent on stealth, hard to detect radar and the effectiveness of long range missiles to survive fights. Simulations have shown that Russia's SU-35S, a 4th generation fighter, can best the F-35 in combat with a 10 to 1 kill death ratio. And the SU-35S is inferior to Russia's top of the line PAK T-50. Both fighters have a larger number of more effective missiles then the F-35 as well. Not only is the F-35 an ineffective fighter at its cost, it is diverting much needed money from other programs.

My Comment:

Yet another devastating take down of the F-35. Read it all. I'm largely in agreement with the reports conclusions. We wasted a ton of money on this plane that would have been better spent on other programs. Instead of a jack of all trades fighter that isn't really good at any of its jobs, we should have bought specialized planes for each role. The F-35 might have been a good replacement for the Marine's Harrier, but for anything beyond that it is pretty useless.

The American defense industry has come off as rather arrogant. We are far too dependent on our technology. Our enemies are not. They have developed their own fighters and and countermeasures. And they know what our doctrine is. The idea that we would win in an engagement with the Russians, or even the Chinese, is not as likely as it once was. 

But what are the chances of a war with either of those countries? Though unlikely, it could happen. I am especially concerned about a conflict with China over its various maritime claims, or perhaps even over Taiwan. If such a conflict were to happen in the next few years, it is not at all clear that we would win. Not that anyone would win in a major war between two nuclear powers, but we might lose more then they would. Even if such a conflict is unlikely, it is still possible that Russia and China will sell or share their technology with other countries, which may be U.S. enemies. Imagine Iran or Syria with the PAK T-50.

The F-35 also neuters one of our great military advantages, aircraft carriers. Without an effective dogfighter, the strike capabilities of an aircraft carrier are greatly reduced. After all, a carrier that has all of its fighters shot down is about as useless as a gun without any bullets. Though they will still have defenses due to the various frigates, destroyers and cruisers that make up a modern carrier battle group, they won't be able to attack in any meaningful way. Unlike the airforce, which at least has the F-22 to give some backbone to F-35 attacks, the Navy has nothing. 

The whole situation reminds me of the Vietnam War. Back then we didn't really have an effective dogfighter either. The F-4 Phantom II didn't even have a cannon when it first deployed to the war. That was eventually fixed, but the Vietnamese air force was able to stay in the war, even though their fighters were obsolete. Many more American pilots were captured or killed then would have been if they had an effective dogfighter. The lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of our F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's, all effective fighters with a scary kill death ratio. Perhaps the only good thing to come from the F-35 debacle is that when it inevitably fails, it will inspire new fighters that will learn from its mistakes... 

The F-35 can't win in a dogfight against an F-16, the jet it is supposed to replace. War is Boring.

F-35C in a test flight. US Navy Photo/public domain. 

The F-35 has no business being in a dogfight and will lose to the F-16, one of the planes it is meant to replace. War is Boring. The blog War is Boring, obtained a scathing report on a test flight that pitted the beleaguered aircraft against a F-16D. In the practice dogfight, the F-35A, the most maneuverable model compared to the Marines B model and the Navy's C model, had trouble turning, climbing and keeping energy up. The F-35 should have had the advantage because the F-16D was loaded down with heavy drop tanks that would have limited its maneuverability. Instead, the F-35 had difficulty keeping energy up and was outmaneuvered by the older fighter. When the F-35 tried to get guns on target, the F-16 was able to jink but when the positions were reversed, the F-35 was unable to do the same. The only way the F-35 could engage the F-16 was to bleed off energy by using its rudders to create a fast yaw rate, which is incredibly dangerous in a dogfight. The test pilot also complained that he was unable to turn his helmet effectively to spot the enemy plane when it was behind him. The pilot essentially stated the F-35 was inferior in a dogfight to both the F-16 and the F-15.

My Comment:

I have a few things to say that kind of defend the F-35's lack of dogfight ability. I'm no fan of the plane but I believe in providing context. First, our F-22's, which are effective dogfighters, are supposed to be the planes clearing out the skies. We only have 187 F-22's so combat losses in a major war could force the F-35's in a fighter role. And of course, the Navy doesn't have F-22's to use. But for the time being, the F-35 won't be the only option. 

Second, our entire military doctrine is to destroy jets on the ground so they never get up into the air to dogfight. The F-35 can do this, though not as well as other planes. In theory the F-22's should clear out the skies so the F-35's and various bombers can destroy airfields and aircraft on the ground so they never get a chance to fight. 

Third, dogfighting doesn't really happen much in modern air combat. Most air to air engagements take place outside of visual range and they rarely devolve into turning dogfights. Even energy fighting would be rare. Most of the time, if the fighters aren't blown up on the ground, they will be targeted by missiles from very far away and would never get a chance to get into a dogfight in the first place. 

Of course the counter argument is that the F-35 doesn't have all that many missiles, unless it uses hardpoints which kills its stealth, so in an extended engagement they may be forced into close combat. And there is always a chance that the F-35's could be caught by surprise by enemy fighters. In an ambush situation, the F-35 would either be forced to run or try to win a dogfight at a huge disadvantage. And from what it sounds, the rudder maneuver to increase yaw while getting on target that the report mentioned would make them extremely vulnerable to other enemy aircraft even if they were able to get guns or missiles on target during a dogfight. I'm no expert of dogfighting but one thing I do know is that you need to keep speed and energy up in a dogfight. If you don't you leave yourself extremely vulnerable. 

The obvious solution is to not let F-35's get into dogfights. But it is going to be forced into the role. It's also being forced into other roles it isn't well suited for, such as close air support and ground attack. Sure, it can do all of these things but it can't do anything well. It's a true jack of all trades and master of none. It was designed to do everything so it shouldn't be surprising if it ends up in a close range fight at some point.

I think the F-35 could have been a decent plane if it had just focused on being one thing or the other. The F-35B model will probably work out for the Marines, considering what they need it for. The Harrier was never all that good either, but the short take off characteristics was more important then the deficiencies it had. Like the Harrier, the F-35 was never meant to be the front line fighter for the U.S. military. It was meant to take off from amphibious assault ships in support of Marines on the ground. 

Instead the F-35 is getting pushed into all kinds of roles that it just isn't suited for. A much smarter way to do things is to have a separate fighter for each role. Right now our Air Force has the F-22 for air to air, with the F-15 and F-16 being fighter-bombers, and the A-10 for ground assault. The F-35 is going to be asked to take on all rolls and by trying to do everything it can't do any of those rolls as good as the planes it is replacing. 

Considering the obscene amount of money the F-35 is going to cost us, it is a utter shame that it can't do much of anything well. Our rivals, China and Russia, aren't having the same problems. Indeed, China pretty much copied the F-35 with their J-31 and refined the design, slimming the plane, making it more maneuverable and gave it a critical second engine. In short, the Chinese have a better fighter then the F-35 in the pipeline and there is little doubt in my mind that the Russians will have a better fighter as well. 

If it wasn't for our limited number of F-22's, which have had some minor problems of their own, America could lose our air superiority. I just hope that we don't double down and continue to throw good money after bad for the F-35. But given how much money and how many jobs are on the line, I don't see the F-35 going anywhere anytime soon. 

The F-35 can not even fire its main gun. The Daily Beast.

The F-35 may look cool but looking cool isn't enough. The Daily Beast/Reuters

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not even be able to fire its gun until 2019, four years after it comes into service. The Daily Beast. The $400 billion dollar fighter is due to start service with the Marines this year and the Air Force next year. The issue is a software problem. Without an upgrade the 25mm cannon cannot fire. And even if it could it barely carries any ammunition. It has a capacity of only 180 rounds. The fighter will have to rely on only two AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles to defend itself and can carry only two bombs as well. The fighter is due to replace a huge number of airplanes, including the venerable Harrier jumpjets and A-10 Lighting II/Warthog as well as the more modern F-16 and F-18. The lack of an effective gun is a major criticism of the jet as a major role will be to support troops under fire. Guns are more effective in "danger close" situations where the enemy is right next to friendly troops. The F-35 will also be at a huge disadvantage in dogfights due to a lack of weapons. 

My Comment:

Unbelievable. The F-35 has come under righteous criticism for being a huge waste of taxpayer money before but this is just crazy. Not having a main gun is a huge issue for a fighter that may be expected to dogfight. The Air Force tried having a gunless fighter jet back in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom II had no gun and when it got into battles over North Vietnam pilots often found themselves in close range dogfights with no real way to hurt their enemies since their missiles were mostly useful at long range. Eventually they were modified to carry gunpods. If the F-4 Phantom II had problems with its nine hardpoints and large numbers of missiles, how will the F-35 fare with only two? 

Eventually the F-35 will get its gun. I hope. But the fighter is still a huge waste of money and is a classic case of trying to do too much. The F-22 is a better dogfighter. The A-10 is a better air support and tank killer. The F-16 and F-18 are probably better dogfighters too and can carry more bombs and missiles. The only real advantage the F-35 has is stealth, an advantage that the Chinese are working very hard to negate. Trying to be a jack of all trades is a very bad idea for a fighter jet. Specialist fighters, bombers and air support planes are the way to go.

Unfortunately that won't happen. The F-35 is a huge pork barrel project, one that even transcends international borders. The F-35 has equipment and components spread across hundreds of congressional districts and even in international areas as well. No congressperson in any of these districts is going to stand up and say "hey, the F-35 isn't really all that good". To do so would be political suicide since it would cost jobs. Hopefully, our troops don't suffer too much due to classic Washington politics. 

F-35 cleared for service again. Yahoo/AP

F-35 Lightning II. -Wikipedia

F-35 fighters cleared for flight after fire issue. Yahoo/AP All F-35's were grounded after a fire at Eglin Air Force base in Florida. The cause of that fire has still not been determined. Some restrictions remain.

My Comment:
Yet another problem for this troubled fighter. It's going to cost $400 billion dollars and they can't seem to get it to work right. And it's not that good of an airplane. The Pentagon has been trying way to hard to have one platform do the job of every other combat plane in the military. It's a jack of all trades master of none, but the specialists do a better job. The F-22's are better fighters, the F-15's and F-16's are better strike aircraft, the A-10 is a MUCH better ground support aircraft. I might explain why in a later post but needless to say i'm not a fan of the aircraft. I will say that the F-35 is better then the Harriers but that's only because they are horribly obsolete. I would have liked it a lot better if the Pentagon had just bought more F-22's and simply upgraded their existing strike and ground support aircraft.

All that being said people said the same thing about the F-16 back when it was in development so maybe they can turn it around.