Noted regarding the current leadership. However, this aircraft was bought what 10 years ago? It's our current leadership that's trying to axe (at least part) of the program (I imagine our current leadership had other priorities when this program came to fruition.). The briefs Ive been to claimed the systems had all been and is still being flight tested (granted they weren't installed in an F35). Are you claiming the technology doesn't exist?
Zero growth capability? In regards to what? Systems/sensors? The same ones that are growing in fidelity, accuracy and speed, all the while getting smaller and lighter?
Pugs, with all due respect, all you've said is some XO RIO couldn't justify 2-seats 16 years ago? F-16s scattered all over Arizona (and probably Harriers too), but how many of either of those are we crashing today?
Full disclosure: Not a jet guy, and still a month away from wings, so I'm not trying to go where I dont belong here but:
There is a tendency to assume that 'the leadership' thinks with one mind, a singular goal, and direct action. That may be true on the uniformed side, but the JSF, like most large appropriations, has been plagued with several people's agendas causing LOTS and LOTS of problems. The unfortunate thing about the US Congress is that the US Congress is often involved in their decisions.
In March 2009
this GAO report cited "maturation of several critical techonologies essential to meet operational performance and logistical support requirements. Collectively, testing and technical challenges will likely add more costs and time to development, affecting delivery of warfighter requirements and hampering start up of pilot and maintainer training and initial operational testing."
So in effect the answer to your question above is: Yes those technologies don't yet fully exist. Now granted this is a 24 month old report, however it should be noted that the GAO has issued several reports throughout the history of the JSF program and this is by far not the first time such language has appeared. And just so you know I'm not full of shit... The
March 2011 report is almost a copy and paste of the March 2009 report.
I dont have any experience in the 1 seat / 2 seat jet community so I wont speak to that, and I know that due to the sensitive nature of the JSF the full capabilities can not be discussed here. That being said as a tax payer I still have very big reservations regarding the cost benefit of the JSF, especially for the US Navy. I know the issue of JSF v. more Rhino's is a lot more complicated for USMC due to the requirement that you operate from the small decks. But for the Navy at least it would seem that the F-18 might be the best choice.
Consider the following:
We must accept that we are going to loose aircraft whether they be F-18s, JSFs, or B-2 Spirits. In the more recent years the number of aircraft that were lost to non-combat related mishaps is FAR more than combated related losses.
The fly away cost of a Rhino is in the $55 mil range (depending on how the cost is measured and what year dollars were talking about), while the F-35 started at $86 Million and has increased to a projected $131 Million. Considering the current trend its not hard to believe that the unit cost for the F-35 could reach $165 Million.
I see $165 million as kind of a majic number because thats the point where 1 JSF costs as much as 3 Rhinos. We're already passed the previous majic number of $110 Million.
So the following questions need to be answered:
Can 3 F-18s do as good or better of a job than 1 JSF?
Keeping in mind that when we loose 1 JSF to a training mishap we lost the equivalent of 3 Rhinos... and when two jets collide in formation training (which unfortunately happens far more often than we would like) we loose 2 JSFs it becomes 6 Rhinos... Is the JSF really worth the cost?
The questions are legitimate and I don't pretend to have the answers, but its something to consider. Cost is certainly a factor, but so is the life of the air crew. So trying to get back to the original threadjack 1 JSF only puts one pilot at risk, where as 2 18Fs puts 4 airmen at risk. So it is something to consider...
Boeing is making some strong arguments however, it makes me wonder more and more is the JSF the right answer for the Navy? The video in the OP is food for thought.