F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

Derek 2.0 · December 13, 2015

Well, continuing this theme, Australia and the United Kingdom were at Guadalcanal in 1942....and they are F-35 partners today.

And, like the Americans, have seen the result, firsthand, of not being prepared at the onset of a conflict brought to their own shores and not of their choosing........

On Guard for Thee · December 13, 2015

Well, continuing this theme, Australia and the United Kingdom were at Guadalcanal in 1942....and they are F-35 partners today.

Albeit they are reducing their orders. So up go the costs even more for for a "dog that cain't hunt"

Edited December 13, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

ReeferMadness · December 13, 2015

You're assuming the design is f*cked up.........Without a doubt incorporating STOVL into the requirement by the Clinton Administration added to the complexity of the program (and was one of the reasons Boeing's X-32 lost to the X-35) but there is no evidence to suggest that developing separate fifth generation fighters for all three services would have been cheaper in developmental costs and through life operating costs.........you're simply repeating the theme put forth by the military aviation lobby that would be more than happy to develop and produce numerous different types.

Oh, it's f*cked up - and the need for the lift fan is why the butterball is so fat and heavy and stuck with one stupid huge engine. And has such a puny internal payload.

Well a common urban legend, again you're not basing your slanted story on fact. See none other than the ships histories of USS Enterprise (nearly lost off Guadalcanal), USS Saratoga (supported the invasion force), USS Hornet (sunk during the campaign), USS Wasp (sunk during the campaign) and the jeep carrier USS Long Island (delivered the first Marine aircraft to Guadalcanal several days after the invasion).......hence such "stories" are factually incorrect, after all, the USMC is but a cog in the Department of the Navy and thousands of USN sailors died supporting the Marines at not only Guadalcanal, but Tarawa, Guam, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa etc.

Yep, and they pulled the other carriers back on account of the carrier deficit. If the Japanese had pushed their advantage while they still had one, they may have made a better of fight of it. They were afraid to commit their massive battleships.

I really don't care. I said it was a story, not my story. No story is perfect and stories that survive generally have elements of truth to them.

On Guard for Thee · December 13, 2015

The lift fan and trying to achieve stealth at the cost of performance. Nice try, but you end up with a machine that does nothing very well.

bush_cheney2004 · December 13, 2015

Oh, it's f*cked up - and the need for the lift fan is why the butterball is so fat and heavy and stuck with one stupid huge engine.

Unlike the USMC, Canada was never going to buy F-35Bs. Canada was sweet on U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters in the past...even though it has no aircraft carriers.

On Guard for Thee · December 13, 2015

One stupid huge engine that burns so hot it tends to blow up.

Derek 2.0 · December 13, 2015

Oh, it's f*cked up - and the need for the lift fan is why the butterball is so fat and heavy and stuck with one stupid huge engine. And has such a puny internal payload.

In your opinion, shared by a handful of bloggers, defunct anti-military writers and companies attempting to sell their own wares........

Yep, and they pulled the other carriers back on account of the carrier deficit. If the Japanese had pushed their advantage while they still had one, they may have made a better of fight of it. They were afraid to commit their massive battleships.

Those were their carriers, two sunk, another very nearly and with one (the oldest) fit for service, later backed up by a British Carrier (HMS Victorious) until early 1943 when the newer ones (Essex and Independence classes entered service)........at that time, the USN was outnumbered (even after the Battle of Midway) in terms of carriers by the Japanese, despite this, as actual history (not "stories") shows, the USN didn't hold out their carrier force during the Guadalcanal campaign.

As to Battleships, that too is a bunk statement.........at the time, there was only one (modern) battleship (USS North Carolina) available for the initial invasion, joined weeks later by her sister (USS Washington) and in the following months by the newer South Dakota class.......if you're unaware, see December 7th 1941......what wasn't sunk or seriously damaged, was the only line of defense of the West Coast (including Canada) following the Japanese invasion of the Aleutian Islands (Alaska)......The USN wasn't "afraid" of committing their battleships, they didn't have any to commit at the onset of the campaign to bombard Guadalcanal, in addition to being outnumbered by the Japanese in terms of Battleships.......

But the USN and RAN did commit what they had, heavy cruisers and destroyers, and lost a number of them during the invasion of Guadalcanal.......see Ironbottom sound, and with them, thousands of American and Australian sailors.

I really don't care. I said it was a story, not my story. No story is perfect and stories that survive generally have elements of truth to them.

Maybe in some cases, but yours is utterly false.......there are thousands of dead sailors to attest to that, honored by the naming of current and past USN vessels after them....for instance, with the sinking of the American cruiser USS Juneau off Guadalcanal, the five Sullivan brothers were killed (since have had two USN vessels named after them) aboard her and became the basis for the film Saving Private Ryan..........

The point though, if you're going to discuss a factual topic and form and support your opinion on the F-35 (or Gripen etc) from poorly researched sources (not everyone could be expected to know all of this after all) your argument suffers, as such, perhaps you should consider getting new sources.........if you don't care, you're perfectly in your right, but don't expect to continue conversing with others either more knowledgeable or those that make an effort (and even ask questions), instead being tuned out.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Derek 2.0

On Guard for Thee · December 13, 2015

The point though, if you're going to discuss a factual topic and form and support your opinion on the F-35 (or Gripen etc) from poorly researched sources (not everyone could be expected to know all of this after all) your argument suffers, as such, perhaps you should consider getting new sources.........if you don't care, you're perfectly in your right, but don't expect to continue conversing with others either more knowledgeable or those that make an effort (and even ask questions), instead being tuned out.

I assume then in your opinion, the likes of the Pentagon is what you would call a poorly informed source, as even they realize how poor the bomb truck performs.

http://www.newsweek.com/more-bads-news-f-35-plane-ate-pentagon-378110

Edited December 13, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

ReeferMadness · December 13, 2015

I assume then in your opinion, the likes of the Pentagon is what you would call a poorly informed source, as even they realize how poor the bomb truck performs.

http://www.newsweek.com/more-bads-news-f-35-plane-ate-pentagon-378110

Who knew the Pentagon consisted of "a handful of bloggers, defunct anti-military writers and companies attempting to sell their own wares........", eh Derek?

Derek 2.0 · December 13, 2015

Who knew the Pentagon consisted of "a handful of bloggers, defunct anti-military writers and companies attempting to sell their own wares........", eh Derek?

Again you're referring to a report that stated, prior to the USMC declaration of an initial operating capability, the F-35 didn't perform at an operational capacity.........that is akin to stating a teenager didn't finish school months prior to graduation :rolleyes:

Edited December 13, 2015 by Derek 2.0

waldo · December 13, 2015

Again you're referring to a report that stated, prior to the USMC declaration of an initial operating capability, the F-35 didn't perform at an operational capacity.........that is akin to stating a teenager didn't finish school months prior to graduation

and when you last tried this same weak... very weak... comeback, I asked you what happened to substantiate that IOC in the ~2 weeks between the release of that internal Pentagon review and the IOC designation... in the ~2 months between the trials and the IOC designation. Although I did repeat the request/challenge perhaps you missed them. Care to ignore... once again?

Derek 2.0 · December 13, 2015

and when you last tried this same weak... very weak... comeback, I asked you what happened to substantiate that IOC in the ~2 weeks between the release of that internal Pentagon review and the IOC designation... in the ~2 months between the trials and the IOC designation. Although I did repeat the request/challenge perhaps you missed them. Care to ignore... once again?

And I answered you numerous times (in this thread), with the realization that organizations like the USMC don't operate in stasis..........when the majority of the report concerned logistics and squadron/air wing manning, such fixes are addressed naturally by an operational deployment.........

Furthermore, going out on a limb, one could also criticize the USN's F-35C deployment aboard the USS Nimitz late last year because the navy didn't have a full air wing aboard, nor was the F-35C operational...........likewise the USAF's test and evaluation unit at Edwards AFB not being operational because it isn't bombing the IS..... :rolleyes:

On Guard for Thee · December 13, 2015

And I answered you numerous times (in this thread), with the realization that organizations like the USMC don't operate in stasis..........when the majority of the report concerned logistics and squadron/air wing manning, such fixes are addressed naturally by an operational deployment.........

Furthermore, going out on a limb, one could also criticize the USN's F-35C deployment aboard the USS Nimitz late last year because the navy didn't have a full air wing aboard, nor was the F-35C operational...........likewise the USAF's test and evaluation unit at Edwards AFB not being operational because it isn't bombing the IS.....

Since I doubt you read the linked article, I've pasted a paragraph from it that basically sums it up. I know you like the bomb truck, but there comes a point...

Now even Dunsford’s piece of good news is in doubt. A scathing memo written by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon official who oversees operational testing and evaluations of new weapons systems, dismissed Dunsford’s declaration, saying the conditions of the test hardly simulated real-world combat. The planes, for example, carried no missiles or bombs during the evaluation and landed on a deck that had been cleared of other aircraft. As a result, Gilmore wrote, the test “did not—and could not demonstrate” that the war plane “is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments.”

ReeferMadness · December 13, 2015

Since I doubt you read the linked article, I've pasted a paragraph from it that basically sums it up. I know you like the bomb truck, but there comes a point...

Now even Dunsford’s piece of good news is in doubt. A scathing memo written by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon official who oversees operational testing and evaluations of new weapons systems, dismissed Dunsford’s declaration, saying the conditions of the test hardly simulated real-world combat. The planes, for example, carried no missiles or bombs during the evaluation and landed on a deck that had been cleared of other aircraft. As a result, Gilmore wrote, the test “did not—and could not demonstrate” that the war plane “is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments.”

See? The butterball is all ready to go.... as long as you don't make it carry missiles or bombs.... or make it land on a deck with other planes.... or make it fight against enemies. Other than that, it's ready to go!!

Think of the operational readiness certification in the same you you think of 'participation medals' they give kids in kindergarten!

bush_cheney2004 · December 13, 2015

See? The butterball is all ready to go.... as long as you don't make it carry missiles or bombs.... or make it land on a deck with other planes.... or make it fight against enemies. Other than that, it's ready to go!!

Gee, that would describe a portion of Canada's present active and inactive CF-188s...purchased many decades ago.

ReeferMadness · December 13, 2015

Gee, that would describe a portion of Canada's present active and inactive CF-188s...purchased many decades ago.

You're bad-mouthing the 40 year old jets that are still faster and more maneuverable than the current butterballs?

Derek 2.0 · December 13, 2015

You're bad-mouthing the 40 year old jets that are still faster and more maneuverable than the current butterballs?

If that were true, why didn't Boeing just propose a warmed over F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the AV-8B Harrier (as opposed to their X-32) as a contender for the JSF program? :rolleyes:

On Guard for Thee · December 13, 2015

If that were true, why didn't Boeing just propose a warmed over F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the AV-8B Harrier (as opposed to their X-32) as a contender for the JSF program?

Or a warmed over F 16. Hell the old one already kicked butterball butt.

bush_cheney2004 · December 13, 2015

You're bad-mouthing the 40 year old jets that are still faster and more maneuverable than the current butterballs?

No, I am just pointing out the logical failure of your F-35 criticisms. Did anyone mention that the Gripen also has one engine ?

I am sure that the Canadian CF-188 replacement process will continue to be so paralyzed and constipated that another U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter will be in the mix.

waldo · December 15, 2015

And I answered you numerous times (in this thread), with the realization that organizations like the USMC don't operate in stasis..........when the majority of the report concerned logistics and squadron/air wing manning, such fixes are addressed naturally by an operational deployment.........

no - you did not answer... you deflected/distracted and your gyrations even had you referring to the F-35 as a prototype at this point... which it most certainly is! Yet, somehow... the U.S. Marines felt warranted in assigning your acknowledged prototype with an IOC designation. Again, I will ask you for at least the 4th time now:

the U.S. Marines relied heavily on that trial in designating IOC. Accordingly, what happened to the F-35 to substantiate that IOC designation in the short ~2 weeks between the release of that damning internal Pentagon review of the trial and the IOC designation... in the ~2 months between the trial and the IOC designation? I will gladly provide the link to that internal Pentagon report again - the raised concerns within that report are most certainly not something so easily dismissed by your curt, "fixed naturally by an operational deployment"... of your acknowledged prototype! :lol:

Derek 2.0 · December 15, 2015

the U.S. Marines relied heavily on that trial in designating IOC. Accordingly, what happened to the F-35 to substantiate that IOC designation in the short ~2 weeks between the release of that damning internal Pentagon review of the trial and the IOC designation...

To this, you're assuming any stated deficiencies from the USS Wasp trials report weren't already known to NAVAIR/USMC/USN/Lockheed etc.

in the ~2 months between the trial and the IOC designation? I will gladly provide the link to that internal Pentagon report again - the raised concerns within that report are most certainly not something so easily dismissed by your curt, "fixed naturally by an operational deployment"... of your acknowledged prototype!

If you have an actual link to the report itself, by all means provide it........simply put, it would cut down on the spin from the media retelling and get down to the finite points of the report. For example, as its been repeated several times in this thread, one point was that the trials weren't conducted in "real world conditions" due to the lack of helicopters deployed and the use of contractors (opposed to USMC techs) during the trails period. Or that the trials didn't include the use of practice or live munitions.

These points are mooted by an actual real world deployment of a USMC Aviation Combat Element aboard a deployed vessel like the Wasp (and supporting vessels), the unit level that provides the helicopters, tiltrotors and fixed-wing aircraft for a deployed Marine unit (Marine Air-Ground task force/MAGTF). In such a deployment, the 6-8 Harriers/F-35Bs become but a cog in a much larger unit with all the entailing support personal, including (Navy/Marine) aircraft technicians, logistics personal and munitions handlers.......

As such, an operational deployment of 6-8 F-35s aboard an LHD, as part of an ACE, will see such concerns addressed naturally by the fact that said aircraft will be deployed with a combined units measured in the hundreds (close to 1000) of additional personal........hence no changes required to the aircraft, but changes to how and with whom its deployed.

As to why the trials didn't include an entire MAGTF, I would assume several factors, one being the cost of deploying several thousand Marines for a one week trials cruise (not cheap). Second, and probably the most important, operational demands, in that said Marines are likely to be deployed, preparing for deployment or just returned from a deployment overseas. Third the differing jurisdictions of the units involved* and finally, the actual (then) status of the Wasp itself, which hasn't been on an operational deployment (aside short training cruises and a disaster relief mission) for over a decade.........hence the trails wouldn't be considered operational, and said concerns would be addressed by deploying an operational squadron, with an operational air wing on an operational ship..........

*The USMC is divided into three regular force divisions (plus one reserve division), the 1st Div is on the West Coast, the 2nd on the US East Coast and the 3rd in Japan, but the Marine Air Wings are 1st/Japan, 2nd East Coast and 3rd West Coast........The USS Wasp is assigned to the East Coast, but will be going to the Pacific to replace one of her sister going into refit...... The F-35B squadron (VMFA-121) was a Japan based squadron, moved to the West Coast and not a operational squadron(Yuma Arizona is under West Coast Command), deployed to an East Coast ship (that just became operational again itself) without an entire air wing and the support that entails.....clear as mud?

waldo · December 15, 2015

If you have an actual link to the report itself, by all means provide it........simply put, it would cut down on the spin from the media retelling and get down to the finite points of the report. [/size]

jeezaz! I already did... and quoted directly from it! And you replied to related posts! I'm quite sure you're aware of this and you're just into yet another of "your routines". Here, let's have you spin this article... as it was POGO's Freedom of Information Request that brought forward that scathing internal U.S. Pentagon report of that F-35 trial: Pentagon Testing Office Calls Foul on F-35B “Operational Test”

Traditionally, declaring IOC has depended upon completing combat-realistic testing, as was the criteria for the F-22’s IOC declaration in 2005. The Marine Corps admits the “initial” deployments are several years down the road. F-35Bs will not be deployed to Okinawa until 2017 at the earliest, and won’t be deployed on amphibious assault ships until 2018. It’s clear that the F-35B’s IOC declaration does not establish that any necessary combat capabilities have actually been achieved. It simply establishes that the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office and the Marine Corps were doggedly determined to reap the public relations benefits of meeting their artificial IOC deadline—even if in name only—no matter what.

.

Derek 2.0 · December 15, 2015

jeezaz! I already did... and quoted directly from it! And you replied to related posts! I'm quite sure you're aware of this and you're just into yet another of "your routines".

.

Of the several articles linked to in this thread, I never realized the actual report was embedded. From reading it, the major areas of concern are the following:

The testing would have to include the rest of the em.barked Air Combat Element {ACE). with all the additional complications that the presence of the other aircraft and personnel from the ACE would inject into F-358 operations and m�intenan". The F-35Bs and three H-60 Search and Rescue (SAR) detachment helicopters were the only aircraft onboard for this demonstration event. The full ACE will include over 20 additional aircraft, sharing the same flight deck and hangar deck space and some of the same ground support equipment (SE).

So this concern would be addressed by the full deployment of the ACE aboard a LHD. With that, space would be a factor, inversely though, there would be far more personal available for air ops and maintenance.

It would require aircraft equipped with the full complement of electronic mission systems necessary for combat and the exercise of all the normal maintenance procedures necessary to keep those systems in a combat-capable state of readiness. Key combat mission systems were not installed in the aircraft or were not cleared for use (e.g., nose apertures for the infrared Distributed Aperture System were not installed on the aircraft, which is intended to provide missile launch warning and situational awareness to the pilots; use of the night vision camera video in the helmet was prohibited or restricted to no lower than 5,000 feet above the ground - depending on the specific aircraft; limited radar modes were available on some of the Block 28 aircraft). Additionally. degradations in mission systems that would have to be addressed in combat operations were often ignored during this event, as long as the aircraft were able to safely conduct the event's limited training objectives. The test teams neither collected data to support an analysis of mission systems effectiveness or ReliabilJty, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM), nor to assess the impacts of these factors on operational tempo or overall operational effectiveness.

Clearly a reflection of the actual aircraft deployed, in this example, the previous test aircraft sans the operational missions systems. To resolve this issue, the aircraft used post IOC with the latest software would have to be utilized, and in turn, Navy/Marine technicians would have to be able to service it........that clearly will be TBD with the first operational deployment aboard ship.

It would require the loading. carriage. and expenditure of actual ordnance. with all the complications and potential impacts to F-358 and ACE operational tempo that would bring. During the deployment demonstration, the aircraft were not cleared to carry or employ any ordnance.

Again a reflection of the test absent the entire ACE, which includes trained munitions handlers for the aircraft.......clearly this issue would be addressed by having said personal present and munitions on the ship.

It would require that all maintenance activities be conducted by uniformed military persoMel with complete maintenance manuals and troubleshooting capabilities, and any contractor technical support would have to be strictly limited to what can be expected in real-world operations in combat. On this deployment demonstration, the uniformed military maintenance persoMel received significant assistance from embarked contractor personnel who would not be part of combat operations, in areas where the uniformed maintainers curren t\y lack organic troubleshooting capability

This issue, again, is attributed by the entire ACE not being deployed. The ability to "troubleshoot" issues will be addressed by experience gained from confronting said issues in the field..........senior NCM technicians aren't going to have years of experience on the type until they've had years of experience on the type clearly.

It would require the use of fully production-representative SE. The JSF program has yet to provide electrical or cooling ems suitable for the flight deck, and during the deployment demonstration maintainers employed non-operationally-representative workarounds to conduct tasks like fueling. The Marines brought additional, interim SE for use in the hangar bay, but this equipment is not the same as what wiU be deployed.

Not a big deal, as a deployment with an operational ACE, on an operational LHD, will have its own organic support equipment.

It would require the exercise of and full reliance on the aircraft's intended operational logistics system, the Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) system, without any reliance on non-operationally-representative supply system workarounds. ALGS will determine what spare F-35 pans will be loaded onboard a ship before deployment, the Afloat Spares Package (ASP), and how the supply system will fill requests for pans not included in the ASP. The spares 1hat the contractor and program provided for this deployment demonstration, without resorting to ALGS, may not have been fully representative of what future ships will deploy with. Furthermore, several ad hoc supply actions to obtain spare pans were taken during the event. actions that could not have been accomplished in a timely or practical manner when operationally deployed.

Again this comes down to Navy/Marine logistics, and a realization that the entire ALGS system won't be fully implemented until the transition from the Harrier to the F-35 is complete, clearly until such a time, the USN/USMC will have to support both aircraft types from the existing supply networks. Further more, with regards to predetermined loaded spares, as the law of Murphy dictates, the needed part will never be on hand or will run out faster. This of course is reflected in the USN's carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft (C-2 Greyhound and the CV-22 Osprey) being required to carry internally all fleet wide aircraft parts, up to an entire aircraft engine......

In conclusion:

Formal Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (lOT&E) of the Block 3F F�3SB will overcome the test procedure shortfalls and operational representativeness shortfalls of the deployment demonstration. ln the interim, I recommend the program conduct another deployment with a full ACE and a more aggressive set of demonstration objectives. especially for mission systems employment and weapons integration. to extend the scope of what was acoomplished during this event and to ensure the issues identified are being addressed. The annexes attached at the end of this memo provide historical background, a detailed account of flight operations, specific operational and maintenance observations that support my overall observations. and a more in-depth list of recommendations.

The USS Wasp ARG is to deploy in the Summer in a fully operational capacity, including F-35s as part of its operational ACE.

-------------

One concern from said report that I found truly condemning on the status of the F-35:

For this deployment demonstration detachment, the squadron could have benefited from one more operations officer on the Advance echelon party (ADVON) and one more scheduler throughout the detachment.

There is only one operations planning space that is roughly 15 feet by 15 feet for the entire Air Combat Element (ACE), which the F-358 pilots will have to share with a11 the MV-22 and helicopter crews. This is anticipated to be very busy and crowded. The squadron needed, but did not have. dry-erase boards in all operationr,; spaces. The additional operations planning tasks associated with the F-35B, over and above those associated with the AV-SB, may put additional strain on the limitations of the operations planning space.

Not enough whiteboards and markers during the deployment? Clearly the F-35 program should be canceled, since it will be more capable than existing aircraft and will require a dramatic increase in stationary products :lol:

Edited December 15, 2015 by Charles Anthony

waldo · December 16, 2015

Of the several articles linked to in this thread, I never realized the actual report was embedded. From reading it, the major areas of concern are the following:

as I said, I previously linked to it and quoted from it... and you replied to those related posts. And now, when I link to a further damning summation (by POGO) of the report, you choose to ignore the POGO summation in favour of an obfuscation attempt to diffuse any suggestion that the IOC designation by the JSF office/U.S. Marines was nothing more than a PR stunt to presume to meet an artificial deadline.

that internal U.S. Pentagon report... and the POGO summation of same... categorically show that your acknowledged prototype is not "ready for combat"... no matter how hard you attempt to emphasize "whiteboards & markers" over (for instance...per that POGO link I just provided):

The absence of key combat mission systems, since they were either not installed or not cleared for use. Specifically, the nose apertures for the infrared Distributed Aperture System, which provides missile launch warning and situational awareness to pilots, were not installed. Night vision camera use was restricted to elevations above 5,000 feet. And only limited radar modes were available for some of the Block 2B aircraft. Critical warfighting systems like these cannot operate without advanced software which was unavailable at the time of the demonstration. These systems will not be fully integrated into operational aircraft until the block 3F software is ready in 2017 at the earliest. If these systems had been available, they would likely have added additional maintenance burdens.

For the software that was installed, DOT&E noted that degradations that would have to be addressed in combat “were often ignored during this event, as long as the aircraft were able to safely conduct the event’s limited training objectives.” This meant that in some instances, planes were flown when they were not fully combat ready.

The aircraft were not cleared to carry any ordnance. This was hardly surprising, in part because the F-35B will not be able to fire its gun until 2019.

.

Derek 2.0 · December 16, 2015

as I said, I previously linked to it and quoted from it... and you replied to those related posts. And now, when I link to a further damning summation (by POGO) of the report, you choose to ignore the POGO summation in favour of an obfuscation attempt to diffuse any suggestion that the IOC designation by the JSF office/U.S. Marines was nothing more than a PR stunt to presume to meet an artificial deadline.

.

Obfuscation? I read and cited the concerns from the actual report, not the "summation" of POGO.........

that internal U.S. Pentagon report... and the POGO summation of same... categorically show that your acknowledged prototype is not "ready for combat"... no matter how hard you attempt to emphasize "whiteboards & markers" over (for instance...per that POGO link I just provided):

Again, I'm using the actual report, not a "summation" from an anti Pentagon/defense group that clearly has an axe to grind.........the lack of F-35 stationary from POGO's summation is noted!!! :lol: