US military procurement practices and priorities

Mohsin77 said:

Yep, and I still don't get it.

Case in point:


First, you're implying that a Trillion dollars isn't enough money. Second, you're kind of saying that the F-35's actual effectiveness in the real-world today, is "irrelevant" to your point...(??)... In any case, this bird is still young. But so far, the picture doesn't look all that good. We'll see how well this platform works out over its lifespan.

Click to expand...

First: I'm saying that taking the amount of money spent on F-35 and spending it on an alternative hypothetical fighter cannot be assumed that it will have produced a better project more suited to US needs.

Second: Where did I say the F-35's actual effectiveness in the real world today is irrelevant to the point?
The entire basis of my argument is that the F-35 is one of the most capable fighter aircraft in the world today if not the single most capable fighter aircraft in service and into the medium term future by virtue of its scale and its inherent capabilities.

Let me put this into clear points to address your "second" question:
A) F-35 today is one of the most capable, if not the single most capable fighter type in service today by virtue of its inherent capabilities and the sheer scale of its procurement that is ongoing. It is because the F-35 is such a capable platform, that I think calling the F-35 a "gravy train" or a "pork barrel" project without acknowledging the capabilities it offers, is flawed.
B) The fact that the USAF have said it "wouldn't be worth" including F-35s that are "pre Block 4" in an exercise they simulated for the year 2030 (in a situation when their fighter force was stated to only be made up by NGAD, F-35s, F-15EX, and a "4th gen plus" new design fighter) means absolutely nothing about the absolute capability of the F-35 either today or the absolute capability of "pre Block 4" F-35s for what the global threats they project in 2030. The only thing the USAF statement means, is that in terms of the cost and capability balance (and other non-fighter procurement projects the US will have going forwards) that the USAF wants for that particular simulated exercise for the year 2030, they want F-35s in that situation to be Block 4 to achieve the sufficient goals that they want.
In short, saying "it wouldn't be worth" including pre-block 4 F-35s for a conflict involving China simulated for 2030, is entirely consistent with:
- current F-35s being one of the most, if the not the most fighter type in service in the world today
- pre-Block 4 F-35s in 2030, still being one of the most capable fighter types in service in the world

Mohsin77 said:

As for the point about Turkey, it was Turkey's choice to exit the program. So the "dependence" angle of the program clearly didn't work.

Click to expand...

It was the US that expelled Turkey from the F-35 program.
If Turkey had the choice, obviously they would've preferred to remain in the program while geopolitically deviating from the US in pursuit of their own interests.


Finally, please stop colouring quoted replies in red.
If you want to emphasize a particular part of a reply you're quoting, use the bold or italicize function instead. Red is reserved for moderator use.

Bltizo said:

First: I'm saying that taking the amount of money spent on F-35 and spending it on an alternative hypothetical fighter cannot be assumed that it will have produced a better project more suited to US needs.

Click to expand...

Why cant that be assumed? It's a reasonable assumption and a very justifiable question to ask considering they spent a trillion dollars on it.

Bltizo said:

Second: Where did I say the F-35's actual effectiveness in the real world today is irrelevant to the point?
The entire basis of my argument is that the F-35 is one of the most capable fighter aircraft in the world today if not the single most capable fighter aircraft in service and into the medium term future by virtue of its scale and its inherent capabilities.

Let me put this into clear points to address your "second" question:
A) F-35 today is one of the most capable, if not the single most capable fighter type in service today by virtue of its inherent capabilities and the sheer scale of its procurement that is ongoing. It is because the F-35 is such a capable platform, that I think calling the F-35 a "gravy train" or a "pork barrel" project without acknowledging the capabilities it offers, is flawed.
B) The fact that the USAF have said it "wouldn't be worth" including F-35s that are "pre Block 4" in an exercise they simulated for the year 2030 (in a situation when their fighter force was stated to only be made up by NGAD, F-35s, F-15EX, and a "4th gen plus" new design fighter) means absolutely nothing about the absolute capability of the F-35 either today or the absolute capability of "pre Block 4" F-35s for what the global threats they project in 2030. The only thing the USAF statement means, is that in terms of the cost and capability balance (and other non-fighter procurement projects the US will have going forwards) that the USAF wants for that particular simulated exercise for the year 2030, they want F-35s in that situation to be Block 4 to achieve the sufficient goals that they want.
In short, saying "it wouldn't be worth" including pre-block 4 F-35s for a conflict involving China simulated for 2030, is entirely consistent with:
- current F-35s being one of the most, if the not the most fighter type in service in the world today
- pre-Block 4 F-35s in 2030, still being one of the most capable fighter types in service in the world

Click to expand...

"Capability" of a war machine is a relative term. It can only judged relative to its opponent. You keep using this term "absolute capability" which isnt helpful for such a discourse. The P-51 Mustang also has great "absolute capability" but not relative to the combat environment which it would face today. And 2030 isn't that far away considering the F-35 hasnt even hit full rate of production yet. It's the newest fighter to be released and its already relegated to the back in wargames, when it was supposed to be in the front echelon.

Bltizo said:

It was the US that expelled Turkey from the F-35 program.

Click to expand...

Thats was after Turkey decided it wouldnt give into US pressure. They absolutley had the choice to stay "dependent" on the US but refused. And the US was not able to force this dependence, which you are claiming was a program objective.

Bltizo said:

Finally, please stop colouring quoted replies in red.
If you want to emphasize a particular part of a reply you're quoting, use the bold or italicize function instead. Red is reserved for moderator use.

Click to expand...

Sigh.. that sucks.. Ill use other colors i guess..

Mohsin77 said:

Why cant that be assumed? It's a reasonable assumption and a very justifiable question to ask considering they spent a trillion dollars on it.

Click to expand...

Is it? I would dispute that.
Considering the wide variety of projects that the US has pursued in the post cold war era, many of them have gone over cost and more than a few of them have gone over cost while some of them have resulted in products very, very far from what they aimed to achieve.

Mohsin77 said:

"Capability" of a war machine is a relative term. It can only judged relative to its opponent. You keep using this term "absolute capability" which isnt helpful for such a discourse. The P-51 Mustang also has great "absolute capability" but not relative to the combat environment which it would face today. And 2030 isn't that far away considering the F-35 hasnt even hit full rate of production yet. It's the newest fighter to be released and its already relegated to the back in wargames, when it was supposed to be in the front echelon.

Click to expand...

Absolute capability is absolutely helpful for this discourse.

Let me put it to you this way, using hypotheticals, to demonstrate my point:
- Let's say a block 4 F-35 in 2030, as part of the USAF's wargame simulation in their deployed force structure, allowed them to achieve a 10:1 kill ratio overall in the entire wargame against their simulated PLA.
- By contrast, if we replace all of the block 4 F-35s with block 3 F-35s in 2030, as part of the USAF's wargame simulation in their force structure, and it allowed them to achieve a 7:1 kill ratio overall in the entire wargame against their simulated PLA.

Based on the above, naturally the USAF would say it is "not worth including" pre block 4 F-35s in that specific wargame against their simulated PLA of 2030, because the block 4 F-35s are meaningfully superior while also being of virtually the same cost. So from a cost/capability point of view, naturally it would not make sense to include pre block 4 F-35s against the PLA in their scenario.

However, does that make pre block 4 F-35s "useless" or "not worth it" in an absolute sense?
Certainly not.
Because in 2030, pre block 4 F-35s will still be among the most capable fighter aircraft in service.
All this simulated exercise demonstrated is that in this specific vision of a 2030 wargame against the PLA, they would prefer to spend the money on block 4 F-35s against the PLA instead of pre block 4 F-35s, because it would offer the best bang for buck against their simulated PLA of 2030.

Mohsin77 said:

Thats was after Turkey decided it wouldnt give into US pressure. They absolutley had the choice to stay "dependent" on the US but refused. And the US was not able to force this dependence, which you are claiming was a program objective.

Click to expand...

And the fact that the US was able to cut Turkey off from its planned procurement of 5th generation fighters, was a successful display of this dependence.
Turkey was dependent on the US for its procurement of 5th generation fighters. By geopolitically deviating from the US's wishes, its dependence and vulnerability on the US for 5th generation fighters was carried out.

Bltizo said:

Is it? I would dispute that.
Considering the wide variety of projects that the US has pursued in the post cold war era, many of them have gone over cost and more than a few of them have gone over cost while some of them have resulted in products very, very far from what they aimed to achieve.

Click to expand...

Right, and the same question is worth asking about all such projects. It's basic accountability to the tax payer. Cutting off that line of questioning just gives a blank check to whichever corporation is selling the product.

Bltizo said:

Absolute capability is absolutely helpful for this discourse.

Let me put it to you this way, using hypotheticals, to demonstrate my point:
- Let's say a block 4 F-35 in 2030, as part of the USAF's wargame simulation in their deployed force structure, allowed them to achieve a 10:1 kill ratio overall in the entire wargame against their simulated PLA.
- By contrast, if we replace all of the block 4 F-35s with block 3 F-35s in 2030, as part of the USAF's wargame simulation in their force structure, and it allowed them to achieve a 7:1 kill ratio overall in the entire wargame against their simulated PLA.

Click to expand...

You're actually just comparing Block 3 relative to Block 4, and both of them relative to PLAAF... (it's still a relative comparison).

What you're ignoring; however, is the way the Block 4 was used in this exercise (which was not a success, by the way.) The Block 4 was used as a "workhorse aircraft attacking targets at short ranges." While the actual job of penetrating highly contested airspace, Strike and Air Superiority, was left to a hypothetical 6th gen aircraft which doesn't even exist... The problem, is that this was supposed to be the role of the F-35. That's what Lockheed told everyone when they built it and were paid a trillion dollars for it. It's not even in full-rate production yet and we're being told 'sorry, it can't do that mission at all.' But that was the whole justification of the program. What these exercises also showed, is that the paradigm the F-35 was built on always had a critical flaw, a single point of failure. 'Sensor fusion' assumes access to networks. But the first thing OPFOR did was to take out the networks. And as soon as BLUEFOR's network access was taken out, everything started to fall apart... But that's a whole other issue which we can leave alone, it probably deserves a different thread altogether.

Bltizo said:

And the fact that the US was able to cut Turkey off from its planned procurement of 5th generation fighters, was a successful display of this dependence.
Turkey was dependent on the US for its procurement of 5th generation fighters. By geopolitically deviating from the US's wishes, its dependence and vulnerability on the US for 5th generation fighters was carried out.

Click to expand...

It would've been a "successful display of this dependence" if Turkey was forced to stay in the program and obey US wishes. But the opposite happened. You can't claim successful "dependence" if the other party leaves. The whole point of dependence is to force them to stay. Here's an analogy: If a person is dependent on heroin, and he quits, that's not a win for heroin. Yea, the rehab would suck, but they still quit the drug. They won.

Like I said, the real reason for all the "partners" was to make the program unkillable from a business perspective. This is the same reason why its production is spread over all the place, even though it is grossly inefficient and expensive.

Mohsin77 said:

Right, and the same question is worth asking about all such projects. It's basic accountability to the tax payer. Cutting off that line of questioning just gives a blank check to whichever corporation is selling the product.

Click to expand...

Yes? That's my point about why alternative hypothetical projects might not far better.

Mohsin77 said:

You're actually just comparing Block 3 relative to Block 4, and both of them relative to PLAAF... (it's still a relative comparison).

What you're ignoring; however, is the way the Block 4 was used in this exercise (which was not a success, by the way.) The Block 4 was used as a "workhorse aircraft attacking targets at short ranges." While the actual job of penetrating highly contested airspace, Strike and Air Superiority, was left to a hypothetical 6th gen aircraft which doesn't even exist... The problem, is that this was supposed to be the role of the F-35. That's what Lockheed told everyone when they built it and were paid a trillion dollars for it. It's not even in full-rate production yet and we're being told 'sorry, it can't do that mission at all.' But that was the whole justification of the program. What these exercises also showed, is that the paradigm the F-35 was built on always had a critical flaw, a single point of failure. 'Sensor fusion' assumes access to networks. But the first thing OPFOR did was to take out the networks. And as soon as BLUEFOR's network access was taken out, everything started to fall apart... But that's a whole other issue which we can leave alone, it probably deserves a different thread altogether.

Click to expand...

No, I'm comparing the effectiveness of Block 4 vs PLA 2030, and Block 3 vs PLA 2030... as well as comparing Block 4 vs rest of the world, and Block 3 vs rest of the world.

As for the mission of the F-35s in that particular exercise, that was a function of the vulnerability of the tankers that F-35s would need to reach those distances, a reflection of the innate range of the aircraft. However, it still conducted A2A, ground strike and maritime strike.
"For years, Air Force officials have portrayed the F-35 as the aircraft that it would use to infiltrate into enemy airspace to knock out surface-to-air missiles and other threats without being seen. However, in the war game, that role was played by the more survivable NGAD, in part due to the F-35′s inability to traverse the long ranges of the Pacific without a tanker nearby, Hinote said.
Instead, the F-35 attacked Chinese surface ships and ground targets, protected American and Taiwanese assets from Chinese aircraft, and provided cruise missile defense during the exercise. But “it’s not the one that’s pushing all the way in [Chinese airspace], or even over China’s territory,” Hinote said."

Sounds like the F-35s in this exercise performed a vital and important role to me.

And again, more importantly, none of the results of this exercise or the F-35's involvement in it, nor any of the arguments that you have presented, are of a quantity to counter this statement which forms the underlying foundation of my position.
"My argument is that these programs (including F-35 and Virginia class) are very capable platforms and the way in which plawolf described them (as pork barrel, gravy train projects) was an excessively negative and trivialization of the capabilities they present."
Either we have very differing perceptions of what "pork barrel, gravy train projects" means, or we have very differing perceptions of what capabilities the F-35 itself offers (either now, or into the future).

And also, the exercise described was a success

Mohsin77 said:

It would've been a "successful display of this dependence" if Turkey was forced to stay in the program and obey US wishes. But the opposite happened. You can't claim successful "dependence" if the other party leaves. The whole point of dependence is to force them to stay. Here's an analogy: If a person is dependent on heroin, and he quits, that's not a win for heroin. Yea, the rehab would suck, but they still quit the drug. They won.


Like I said, the real reason for all the "partners" was to make the program unkillable from a business perspective. This is the same reason why its production is spread over all the place, even though it is grossly inefficient and expensive.

Click to expand...

You have an odd understanding dependence.
The F-35 creates dependence to customers/partners who buy into it in two ways.
It causes nations who are geopolitically aligned to the US to become more closely geopolitically aligned to the US.
It causes nations who are are less closely geopolitically aligned to the US to become dependent on the US for a 5th generation capability.

In the case of Turkey, it was dependent on the US for a 5th generation capability, and by distancing itself from the US geopolitically, the US stripped Turkey of its F-35s and now Turkey will likely end up having to wait over a decade for an equally mature 5th generation capability, from the year when their F-35s were meant to be received.

Bltizo said:

Yes? That's my point about why alternative hypothetical projects might not far better.

Click to expand...

But they might have as well. Which is why I said it's a very reasonable assumption and a valid to question to ask of any project or mission. It's a crucial part of a standard debrief.

Bltizo said:

No, I'm comparing the effectiveness of Block 4 vs PLA 2030, and Block 3 vs PLA 2030... as well as comparing Block 4 vs rest of the world, and Block 3 vs rest of the world.

Click to expand...

All relative comparisons... Which is why that "absolute capability" term didn't really mean anything. All comparisons are by definition relative to something.

Bltizo said:

"For years, Air Force officials have portrayed the F-35 as the aircraft that it would use to infiltrate into enemy airspace to knock out surface-to-air missiles and other threats without being seen. However, in the war game, that role was played by the more survivable NGAD, in part due to the F-35′s inability to traverse the long ranges of the Pacific without a tanker nearby, Hinote said.

Click to expand...

Yep, exactly. That's the core of my argument against this trillion dollar product.

And the reason why I said you were being too generous to the F-35, is the following:

Bltizo said:

Instead, the F-35 attacked Chinese surface ships and ground targets, protected American and Taiwanese assets from Chinese aircraft, and provided cruise missile defense during the exercise. But “it’s not the one that’s pushing all the way in [Chinese airspace], or even over China’s territory,” Hinote said."

Sounds like the F-35s in this exercise performed a vital and important role to me.

Click to expand...

.... That's way too generous.

They spent a trillion dollars on a platform that can't do the mission it was bought to do. Instead, that mission has been handed off to a hypothetical 6th gen aircraft, for which Lockheed (or Boeing) is gonna ask for more obscene amounts of cash.

That's like me going to a car dealership to buy a car. After I pay them, they hand me a bicycle, and say, "come back in 10 years, bring more money, and then you we'll give you an actual car." lolz, like, wtf?!

Bltizo said:

And also, the exercise described was a success

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

It was labelled a "pyrrhic" victory... Maybe you're not familiar with this term in military history... It has very bad connotations:

"We define Pyrrhic victory as “a victory that is not worth winning because so much is lost to achieve it.” The word comes from the name of Pyrrhus, a long-ago king of Epirus, who suffered heavy losses in defeating the Romans at Asculum in Apulia in 279 B.C.E."

Pyrrhus's campaign ended in defeat, as a result of his 'pyrrhic victory.'

Bltizo said:

You have an odd understanding dependence.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm using the standard definition, so I don't know why you're confused. The program failed to keep Turkey in line with US geopolitical interests by keeping it dependent. (That's the key part of enforcing dependence... you have to maintain it.)



.... Anyways, this is getting tedious and we're not getting anywhere. I'm gonna disengage unilaterally for the sake of time. You can have the last word if you wish.

Bltizo said:

The entire basis of my argument is that the F-35 is one of the most capable fighter aircraft in the world today if not the single most capable fighter aircraft in service and into the medium term future by virtue of its scale and its inherent capabilities.

Click to expand...

Erkhm.
Even the most biased Lockheed bulls don't really go as far anymore.
Outside of certain niches, it's most definitely not.

Gloire_bb said:

Erkhm.
Even the most biased Lockheed bulls don't really go as far anymore.
Outside of certain niches, it's most definitely not.

Click to expand...

By virtue of its scale and capabilities.

I'm not claiming that on a single airframe level the aircraft is individually that capable. But when looking at the number of F-35s that are in service today as well as the number of F-35s that will enter service in coming years (versus how many opfor 5th gens will enter service), I think it is quite a reasonable thing to say.
It doesn't really matter if a J-20 or Su-57 are marginally more maneuverable or kinematically superior to F-35, if there are tens more multiples (or in the case of Su-57, hundreds more multiples) of F-35s in service each of which have equal or perhaps superior VLO, sensors, weapons, and networking.

In the case of the PLA, the relative threat and overall capability of the F-35 will depend on how quickly they can induct their own 5th gens as well as their multidomain offensive counter air/strike capabilities.

Bltizo said:

In the case of the PLA, the relative threat and overall capability of the F-35 will depend on how quickly they can induct their own 5th gens as well as their multidomain offensive counter air/strike capabilities.

Click to expand...

Do you think the combined J-20/J-XY annual production numbers will be able to hit F-35 production numbers (about 120 per year) by 2025? That would require a nearly 60% increase in production per year from a 2021 baseline - that's pretty damn ambitious but possible if the PLAAF/PLAN really commit to expanding production.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Do you think the combined J-20/J-XY annual production numbers will be able to hit F-35 production numbers (about 120 per year) by 2025? That would require a nearly 60% increase in production per year from a 2021 baseline - that's pretty damn ambitious but possible if the PLAAF/PLAN really commit to expanding production.

Click to expand...

You are implying the production rate of J-20/J-XY is already 75 per year (at least for 2021).

Is that even true @Bltizo

Thanks