Whenever you have time, please dig up the instance where Lockheed (or Northrop, or Boeing) made any CLAIM on the RCS. You had said it earlier, i'd love to see a sourceThat's not possible the F-35 has an RCS of 0.00016 square meters and has a reflectivey smaller than a gnat's ass.
The entire SDD (System Development and Demonstration) process exists to test the hardware and create the software. There's been a huge amount of change orders that have already been processed and implemented, though the number is now shrinking fast.Mort Walker wrote:If 2400 units are built. The reality is to maintain such an advanced platform by the services requires intense training, more skilled personnel, and of course hiring LM services for the transition period (several years) where the services can actually maintain it organically. After delivery there are going to be so many Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and embedded system software work to keep the F-35 fully functional which will be mind boggling.
Thing is, unit cost does not depend on total production order. Its dictated by the production rate. As long as they can ramp the production order upto 150/yr+, they'll meet the $85 mil target. Current production rate is around 57 units per year (up from 43 units last year).I seriously doubt 2400 F-35s will be built or purchased. The final numbers will be half of that at best by 2030.
It came from you my friend in another thread! You speak the acronym language of the JPO and LM.brar_w wrote:Whenever you have time, please dig up the instance where Lockheed made any CLAIM on the RCS. You had said it earlier, i'd love to see a sourceThat's not possible the F-35 has an RCS of 0.00016 square meters and has a reflectivey smaller than a gnat's ass.
Mort Walker wrote:
It came from you my friend in another thread! You speak the acronym language of the JPO and LM.
So is it safe to assume that you do not have a direct quote on that claim that Lockheed claims XXX for the RCS?? Because if they ever did mention a number it would be a crime. The only time the RCS number popped up on this program was when the ACC (Air Combat Command - Main authority on fighters in the USAF) Head said that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22A he operates. When asked to comment on this, the Lockheed Program manager declined to give any specifics and said that the numbers on the RCS track favorably to the capability demanded. They have never been any more specific then that (The OEM) from what I have come across. But perhaps there is something out there, hence I asked.When the OEM puts out information like 30K hours of operation or an RCS of 0.0001 sq.-meter,
Wow. Is all I can say. The F-35 has so many sensors on it, advanced flight controls, advanced avionics, advanced fire and control radar, advanced weapon systems - and you think the USAF and USN can absorb that since the program started? They don't have the resources. The USAF is hiring engineers for contract specification review, but not for actual development and maintenance of sensors with real-time software.Viv S wrote: The entire SDD (System Development and Demonstration) process exists to test the hardware and create the software. There's been a huge amount of change orders that have already been processed and implemented, though the number is now shrinking fast.
Point is, what you're describing isn't what will happen in the future, its what's happening now. The reason the development process has taken this long is that operational units shouldn't face any such problems. This sort of testing is what the program is doing day in and day out, and will carry on till the SDD phase ends, which should happen around 2018.
With all of the technical issues, production will be limited to 50-60 units a year until 2018.Viv S wrote:Thing is, unit cost does not depend on total production order. Its dictated by the production rate. As long as they can ramp the production order upto 150/yr+, they'll meet the $85 mil target.
IOC is a few months away. SDD is 3 years from completion (even in the worst case - december 2018 its only 3.5 years away). Do note that a plan of production rate has been provided to you in the previous page, and a couple of pages ago I have provided an even more detailed layout of what has been funded. LRIP 8 has been funded and that batch will go into production late next year. LRIP 9 - Long Lead items have been ordered, and LRIP 9 and LRIP 10 block buy contract for 155 aircraft has already been submitted -With all of the technical issues, production will be limited to 50-60 units a year until 2018
It is not as bad as one would think it to be. You are right that it is mind boggling. But, they have had some 4 prior projects to learn from and they are far better prepared than one would imagine. Automation has helped out a lot.If 2400 units are built. The reality is to maintain such an advanced platform by the services requires intense training, more skilled personnel, and of course hiring LM services for the transition period (several years) where the services can actually maintain it organically. After delivery there are going to be so many Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and embedded system software work to keep the F-35 fully functional which will be mind boggling.
I had assumed you had seen the production plan but I edited it in my previous post. LRIP 11 is the last LRIP. LOT 11 (LRIP 11) , LOT 12, (FR1) and LOT 13 (FR 2) MAY be negotiated together. This is what they are talking about as has been reported here -Is LRIP 11 FFP or CPFF, or even CPIF? What about previous LRIPs?
Where do you think the $60bn earmarked for R&D is going. And while the systems here are considerably more sophisticated, they build upon what has previously been achieved. The USAF already has an aircraft in service fielding VLO level stealth, a high degree of sensor fusion, an advanced AESA, an imaging MAWS and a highly sensitive ESM system.Mort Walker wrote:Wow. Is all I can say. The F-35 has so many sensors on it, advanced flight controls, advanced avionics, advanced fire and control radar, advanced weapon systems - and you think the USAF and USN can absorb that since the program started? They don't have the resources. The USAF is hiring engineers for contract specification review, but not for actual development and maintenance of sensors with real-time software.
That figure is already on the verge of being crossed with the current years order at 57 units. Long lead orders for the next batch have been phased for around 75 fighters IIRC.With all of the technical issues, production will be limited to 50-60 units a year until 2018.
No, the same people don't work on the different systems. Each weapon system, already incorporated into force structure, needs personnel to keep them operationally ready and they can't be moved to another program. Work centers are geographically separated at different bases. The reality is that USAF and USN will hire LM for engineering services.NRao wrote:It is not as bad as one would think it to be. You are right that it is mind boggling. But, they have had some 4 prior projects to learn from and they are far better prepared than one would imagine. Automation has helped out a lot.If 2400 units are built. The reality is to maintain such an advanced platform by the services requires intense training, more skilled personnel, and of course hiring LM services for the transition period (several years) where the services can actually maintain it organically. After delivery there are going to be so many Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and embedded system software work to keep the F-35 fully functional which will be mind boggling.
They have been using a partner to test/try things out, with great success.
LRIP 1-5 have completed deliveries. LRIP 6 is being delivered as we speak (it may have completed deliveries by now) and LRIP 7 deliveries will begin soon (if they haven't already) and will continue till Q2 or Q3 of next year at which time LRIP 8 will be on the line. Do keep in mind that by 2019 F-35's will be produced at Fort Worth, Cameri Italy (Already rolled out its first aircraft) and in Japan.What about previous LRIPs?
The R&D budget for the LRS-B is factored in the Five year US budget. You may think that the F-35 is sucking up and is a very large budget drain on the DOD or even the USAF budget. The largest procurement drain is the CLASSIFIED PROCUREMENT category (USAF), followed by Classified Research and then comes the F-35. Google LRS-B to get a complete list of spending earmarked for it over the next 5 years. Defetnsenews did a complete breakdown of it based on the USAF 5 year paper.Right now USAF is gearing up to get ready for the LRS-B award. It will be one big mo-fo contract well past 2030.
The $60 billion is from an acquisition budget. The O&M budget is for organic support. They can only absorb a certain amount, but if Congress and LM lobbyist force the F-35 in significant numbers on the services in the long run, it will cost much more than maintaining existing fighter aircraft platforms even though the older weapon systems may be more labor intensive.Viv S wrote: Where do you think the $60bn earmarked for R&D is going. And while the systems here are considerably more sophisticated, they build upon what has previously been achieved. The USAF already has an aircraft in service fielding VLO level stealth, a high degree of sensor fusion, an advanced AESA, an imaging MAWS and a highly sensitive ESM system.
So yes, the USAF and USMC can absord all of that. Also, the R&D plan and budget includes the maintenance of the real-time software (ALIS). With every block, that software also goes through upgrades. What you're missing is that the program has already delivered some six squadrons to the USAF, USMC & USN (these are not development aircraft). They've been incorporating user feedback into upgrades for a long time and the process will continue to 2018.
You didn't answer my question about whether the LRIPs are FFP, CPFF, CPIF contracts?brar_w wrote:I had assumed you had seen the production plan but I edited it in my previous post. LRIP 11 is the last LRIP. LOT 11 (LRIP 11) , LOT 12, (FR1) and LOT 13 (FR 2) MAY be negotiated together. This is what they are talking about as has been reported here -Is LRIP 11 FFP or CPFF, or even CPIF? What about previous LRIPs?
-
They have to work with the Congress, international customers, and get a sizable discount on the purchase price to get it through but we will know more details this time next year. They don't expect to sign this until the end of 2016 or early 2017.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... uy-410939/
Viv is taking about the R&D budget. Acquisition budget is separate form research budget. Check the budget materials from 2006 to 2016 (FY16 proposal) for more information.The $60 billion is from an acquisition budget.
I answered it a couple of pages back. Every contract from LRIP 5 onwards has been Fixed price minus concurrency changes. Much Like the F-16 (and every other DOD program since ), the F-35 is on a concurrency model. Concurrency cost for the first LRIP 7 or so aircraft (not all cost is for the US but some is also for the International customers) is $1.7 Billion. Concurrency agreements have been signed between the OEM and the JPO and as per them the concurrency cost (Changes discovered during testing that require retrofitting the fleet) would be split 50:50 to an extent and above that 100% would have to be paid by the OEM. Overall concurrency cost is less than 0.5% of the program acquisition cost.You didn't answer my question about whether the LRIPs are FFP, CPFF, CPIF contracts?
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27240The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program expects the $400 billion fighter jet program to lift itself out of the concurrency “rut” by about 2017 or 2018 as the number of aircraft and engine faults discovered during developmental testing continues to decline.
This week, the Government Accountability Office warned that the costs associated with retrofitting already-built Joint Strike Fighters will likely increase as the Defense Department ramps up procurement quantities over the next five years. The services plan to purchase another 339 aircraft through 2019 at a cost of $54 billion, despite 40 percent of the developmental test program remaining.
Speaking at the Norwegian-American Defense Conference in Washington April 17, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the concurrency overlap and the number of new discoveries has come down significantly over the last few years, but conceded that the 130 airplanes already in the field will all need to be retrofitted at some point.
“This program started with an immense amount of concurrency,” the general said. “We are going to find other things wrong with this airplane because we have testing left. Our job is to figure out, how once we find those things, we get it into the production line and stop building airplanes that are not appropriate for what we found -- and then putting a program in place to get all of the other airplanes out in the field upgraded to that new capability or to remove those deficiencies.”
“We feel by about 2017, 2018 we will be out of this rut in which we are building airplanes that now have to be retrofitted because of a new discovery,” he continued.
Bogdan explained that the cost of concurrency, $1.7 billion to date, will not be borne solely by the Untied States, but that international partners will also pay their share depending on an agreed retrofit plan tailored to their needs. His comments come as the first Norwegian F-35, AM-1, makes its way down the assembly line at Fort Worth, TX. The first two Norwegian jets will be delivered in 2015 as the European partner works toward achieving initial operational capability in 2019.
“Ultimately, it will be the partner's decision as to whether they want to modify their airplanes and up to what level,” he said. “We will create a plan that allows every single airplane eventually by 2018 to have the full hardware and full software capability that we promised. We believe all the partners will fund it to that level, but they don't have to. We will keep the airplanes in a configuration they desire, but that's a bill we all end up paying.”
Earlier in his presentation, Bogdan said the F-35 JSF program is big, complicated and sometimes very messy, but “this is not the same program it was five years ago.”
Bogdan described Norway as a “model citizen” on the program and the only partner to bring its procurement profile of 52 fighter jets forward. The country was recently selected to host a heavy engine maintenance depot to service jets in Europe, and Bogdan said there would be many more opportunities for Norway and the wider European defense industry to participate in future sustainment work.
According to the general, European partners can expect to see a suite of new requests for proposals come out in the next two to three years as the program delivers more aircraft and moves closer to its initial operational capability milestones.
“The only two things that we've actually assigned so far are heavy airframe depot and heavy engine depot,” he said. “In the future, over the next two to three years, we'll start discussing with the partnership how we'll set up capabilities to repair all sorts of systems: landing gear, hydraulics, avionics, support equipment, warehousing, and setting up the supply chain. -- James Drew
It doesn't matter because once the aircraft is accepted, then it is the O&M budget which will keep it operational.brar_w wrote:
Viv is taking about the R&D budget. Acquisition budget is separate form research budget. Check the budget materials from 2006 to 2016 (FY16 proposal) for more information.
You didn't answer my question about whether the LRIPs are FFP, CPFF, CPIF contracts?
Of course concurrency costs are going to be <0.5% of acquisition cost. LM isn't interested in going bankrupt. So FFP, but what are the costs of the ECPs to date?I answered it a couple of pages back. Every contract from LRIP 5 onwards has been Fixed price minus concurrency changes. Much Like the F-16 (and every other DOD program since ), the F-35 is on a concurrency model. Concurrency cost for the first LRIP 7 or so aircraft (not all cost is for the US but some is also for the International customers) is $1.7 Billion. Concurrency agreements have been signed between the OEM and the JPO and as per them the concurrency cost (Changes discovered during testing that require retrofitting the fleet) would be split 50:50 to an extent and above that 100% would have to be paid by the OEM. Overall concurrency cost is less than 0.5% of the program acquisition cost.
No one bothered telling them but then there may be a slight chance they someone somewhere may stumble upon this forum and be enlightened. Here's to hoping that before DT3 a couple of weeks from now, they take a few minutes off and visit the forum!For one thing, USMC won't have money left to buy bootlaces if they spend at the projected rate on these hangar-queens.
Who cares..The lost out in the ATF down-select as well..The last pure Boeing designed fighter flew sometime in the 1960's iirc.IIRC, this F-35 design only won that flyoff with Boeing because Boeing was run by idiot managers.
Fighter development isn't dead. You can't develop a fighter for the 2030's and expect it to replace retiring aircraft in the 2016-2035 time period.So let's see - fighter aircraft development is over in the western world for the next 60 years because... drumroll... The F-35 can solve all problems and cannot be improved upon.
Yup, just about too! Anytime now!Except that parts are falling off it, and cracks developing all over at 50 flight hours and beyond. We can call it MILV (Multiple Independent Landing Vehicles) when it comes down in pieces.
The current estimate is $1.7 Billion, and this is for all ECP's from LRIP 1 to LRIP 7. LRIP 8 is an estimate since there is always a possibility of the changes to be ready in the line by the time they enter production. They have had to revise concurrency down over the last 3 years, because the vendor has incorporated changes into the line faster than they anticipated. Unless there is something else that is discovered int eh remaining SDD testing, the program is expected to escape concurrency changes by LRIP8 and even at LRIP8 the concurrency changes are fairly low. The main (disproportionate) concurrency cost is for the first 4-5 LRIP'sMort Walker wrote:
Of course concurrency costs are going to be <0.5% of acquisition cost. LM isn't interested in going bankrupt. So FFP, but what are the costs of the ECPs to date?
Yes, but outside of the BCA they aren't adding new aircraft, they are replacing outgoing aircraft with incoming aircraft. Its not like they haven't had the time to plan for this, they have had what 6 extra years to plan for it ??It doesn't matter because once the aircraft is accepted, then it is the O&M budget which will keep it operational.
You should have seen the uproar when these estimates were all over the place..!Of course concurrency costs are going to be <0.5% of acquisition cost. LM isn't interested in going bankrupt. So FFP, but what are the costs of the ECPs to date?
USN has no demand, and has never considered (nor anyone suggested) that they buy the STOVL version. In fact the F35B cannot take off or land from their carriers unless it takes off and lands like it does on the USMC ships (but why??). The USMC however is buying some F-35C's to operate out of USN CVN'sUSN hates STOVL because they buckle the decks, and they hurt the case for large aircraft carriers.
The biggest support for the acquisition phase for the F-35 is from the USMC, then the USAF and then the USN. The Marines need the aircraft the MOST since they are loosing out capability at the fastest rate out of the three services. This is a reason why they are declaring IOC a full 12 months ahead of the USAF.They ALWAYS back out of these projects early.
$60 bn is just the R&D budget including the cost of developing the ALIS real-time maintenance software. All of which is already sanctioned funding. Procurement costs come under a different heading and are currently estimated at $330bn for the entire run of 2,443 aircraft.Mort Walker wrote:The $60 billion is from an acquisition budget. The O&M budget is for organic support. They can only absorb a certain amount, but if Congress and LM lobbyist force the F-35 in significant numbers on the services in the long run, it will cost much more than maintaining existing fighter aircraft platforms even though the older weapon systems may be more labor intensive.
The number is also all over the place. The A version numbers (matters because its a 2/3 of your fleet) are between 24,000, 26,000 all the way up to 30,000. At the end of the day they are developing a roadmap to get the O&S cost of the fleet to within 20% of the legacy fleet (its currently around 40%) but then it would be a fairly interesting exercise to see what the difference was for the F-15A compared to the F-4 (Hint: It was significantly more than 20% - one can ask F4 and F-16 drivers over at f-16.net and they have plenty of tales.. to tell). With every generation you are going to add capability. The F-16A showed up as a LWF..The F-35 is a medium sized strike fighter.. So yes just as the F-16 and F-15 cost more than the aircraft they replaced (to procure and operate) the F-22 and F-35 will cost more to operate..And this applies to every other aircraft...No F-16A operator (ex) that switches over to F-16 Blk 50 pays the F-16A CPFH...or pays the same when he/she upgrades to a Rafale...Viv S wrote:$60 bn is just the R&D budget including the cost of developing the ALIS real-time maintenance software. All of which is already sanctioned funding. Procurement costs come under a different heading and are currently estimated at $330bn for the entire run of 2,443 aircraft.Mort Walker wrote:The $60 billion is from an acquisition budget. The O&M budget is for organic support. They can only absorb a certain amount, but if Congress and LM lobbyist force the F-35 in significant numbers on the services in the long run, it will cost much more than maintaining existing fighter aircraft platforms even though the older weapon systems may be more labor intensive.
O&M costs are currently $32,000/hr. Which is on the higher side, but hardly bank breaking. And it is being reduced further.
not going to be as bad as one normally expects it to be. It will, however, have its hiccups.No, the same people don't work on the different systems. Each weapon system, already incorporated into force structure, needs personnel to keep them operationally ready and they can't be moved to another program. Work centers are geographically separated at different bases. The reality is that USAF and USN will hire LM for engineering services.
Right now USAF is gearing up to get ready for the LRS-B award. It will be one big mo-fo contract well past 2030.
Mort, Infrastructure upgrade cost has been constantly spent and facilities upgraded and prepped by all three services. You can google up what they have achieved at each of the bed-down locations and what the O&S plans are specifically to the F-35.With the F-35 you have a much higher level of complexity in software, sensors, avionics and engine maintenance. It won't be a simple 25-30% inflation adjusted increase, but really much higher due to specialized logistics infrastructure support. The USAF logistics centers at Hill or Warner Robbins will need to have the appropriate infrastructure to maintain these aircraft once operational. As happened with the last sequester, the people who maintain the F-35 subsystems, could be idle for over a month and cause a workload slip of several months.
You just love to take shots at people don't you!! Keep at it!UlanBatori wrote:Man! I hadn't finished typing the post before the local Thread Watch attacked!
This is field operational costs. Logistics, software systems maintenance/development, and hardware engineering costs for the vast array of sensors, are not presented. This is something no one will openly discuss. The F-35 is as complex to maintain as an electronics warfare platform in terms of work involving the hardware and software, but it may actually be harder since it is an offensive weapon system and changes will be constant due to changing threat situations. It will be a technical challenge for the USAF and USN to maintain at a lower level of support which will be very needed. Even to this day USAF spends considerably for B-52 low level engineering support since it is a platform for the delivery of very modern weapon systems, but it is mostly organic support with little from the contractor. The F-35 will need LM engineering services for this level of support and it will be very expensive. Yes O&M costs gradually rise, but the O&M budget is guaranteed to be cut in this fiscal climate.Do keep in mind that the USAF's own estimates range from 10% (above the F-16 block 52) to 30% above block 52 in CPFH. Ultimately, do also keep in mind that starting July 2016 (USAF IOC) the USAF will not have 1776 F-35A's. The fleet gradually builds up...and even in the early 2020's it would still be a large F-16 dominated fleet..The gradually transition into the F-35A @ 80 aircraft per year starting 2020 (deliveries). Your O&M costs do not spike but gradually rise, just as they have been for the last few decades..and just as they did when you shifted from the F-4 to the F-15 and F-16. or when F-16A operators, shifted to the much more advanced capable Block 50 F-16 or when F-16 operators shift to the Typhoon...Or when the Mig-21 squadrons shift to the Rafale, or the Su-30MKI...Or even the more capable LCA MK II
Mort, they have presented trends for the entire fleet O&S cost over time and this includes CPFH for the individual aircraft include what they intend on spending to fully fund ops and maintain plus sustainment of the fleet (2400 aircraft).This is field operational costs. Logistics, software systems maintenance/development, and hardware engineering costs for the vast array of sensors, are not presented. This is something no one will openly discuss. The F-35 is as complex to maintain as an electronics warfare platform in terms of work involving the hardware and software, but it may actually be harder since it is an offensive weapon system and changes will be constant due to changing threat situations.
So debate the post and don't take pot shots at the poster! And I did not ATTACK you as you mentioned..Its an interesting thing you have raised (Cost form 1 generation to the other) and I wished that you add to your analysis what the global trend is as well in this department. How much did the IAF pay for the M2K and Mig-29 fleet's ? What are they paying for the Dassault Rafale Fleet?I do NOT post for or against any postor/ess in particular - AFAIK this thread is not owned by anyone but the Czars-e-BRF.
) Or, perhaps, what are you expecting, perhaps compared to some previous experience?Logistics, software systems maintenance/development, and hardware engineering costs for the vast array of sensors, are not presented. This is something no one will openly discuss.
Are these your opinions? Or something you have read (about the JSF) that leads you to say this?The F-35 will need LM engineering services for this level of support and it will be very expensive.
WarMalt,
For the second time, DT aircraft do not perform DACT. F-16's support the Developmental testing of the F-35's and this what AF2 was doing over there. DT is not in charge of developing tactics, or verifying them that is done separately. F-35 will be put up gains the F-16, F-18 and other aircraft in DACT but not by these birds and not as a part of test-point completion.Point is this: Take 'Stealth' away as a primary issue, and both the F-22 and the F-35 become rather ordinary: this is why they won't post results of fly-offs against F-16s for instance.
This is correct, but it becomes an issue of do you have the technical resources and money to overcome stealth? In the case of Russia and China, yes, but they've actually got to deploy these modern radar systems over a large area by 2030. In radar you're faced with a few physical problems regarding frequencies. One, high frequencies near 10 GHz are subject to water vapor attenuation and velocity resolution, two, low frequencies are subject to interference and jamming. So this limits which frequencies can be best used. RCS is a description of how much energy is reflected back to your receiver. There has been considerable improvement in receiver sensitivity and with the implementation of modern Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs), FPGAs, and very precise (and cheap) atomic clocks. The Chinese are spending money on radar for ornithology, ground sensing, and weather, but what does that have to do with stealth? They are technical lessons learned on how much energy is reflected back to your receiver when trying to detect something which has a very low RCS. DRDO is also learning the same lessons hence they've decided to do their large scale AWACs. Which, I would bet be able to detectUlanBatori wrote:(Thanks, pragnya
Mort: The other issue lurking underneath is that of the Stealth cost. IMO, the reports from first Russia and now China indicate that they are getting over the shock of the radar stealth issue. Of course defeating radar is not the only Stealth, but it is the costliest one. The whole idea AFAIK is minimizing RCS --- tuned to a certain frequency range. The range is pretty broad, but is centered around a few GHZ. What would I do if faced with this? I would bite the bullet and invest in 'radars' that include very low and very high frequencies, as expensive as that may be. Millimeter wave radar is already known, but not nearly high enough in frequency. Going to the extreme of millimeter wave and into the optic is one avenue, while going down to very long wavelength radio waves, ultrasonics and then even plain acoustics is the other.
Surely they have been looking at the implications for their own ability to stay independent and be able to sayThere but for the grace of ATM go I!
to Dubya and Cheney? If u were Defense Mantri and the baksheesh were the same either way, would u invest in imports of big fighter planes, or lots of small imports of certain electronic components? Its been 25 years since Desert Shield etc. Not everyone is as stupid as they appear, hain? Some of what is displayed in Ukraine is pretty awesome in targeting precision, and they probably have good detection as well. I think they have come a long way since the Berlin Wall came down, in terms of digital electronics. They have always been good at mmwave and lasers. The other side of all this is that for the Inferior Ones, being able to SEE an incoming US aircraft is no comfort if one cannot hit it. So they would also be investing heavily in hypersonic weapons such as kinetic-kill, or hypersonic cruise missiles. I don't see what an F-35 can do against those - only the Air Force version has even one cannon. Do they have Force Fields I wonder.We have met the Enemy..
And he is Common Sense.