Is Trump's targeting of the F-35 for "cost" really about crippling NATO's ability to deter Russia?

[highplainsdem]

Saw this suggested on Twitter today, and it does make sense. Another favor by Trump for his pal Putin.

From Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wolters-russia-f35-invisible-muhammad-ali-2016-9

NATO AIR CHIEF: For Russians, engaging an F-35 would be like jumping into a boxing ring to 'fight an invisible Muhammad Ali'


NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — When asked how the F-35 Lightning II would stack up against potential aggression from Moscow, NATO air chiefs said they're confident the fifth-generation jet would devalue Russian forces.

"What we are perfectly convinced of is the fact that when we do bring fifth-generation assets into the European region it is something that certainly serves as a deterrent," Gen. Tod Wolters, commander of US Air Forces in Europe, told Business Insider.

"It forces the Russians to take a look at what we are doing and to realize that if they had to embrace us they might be in a position where they had to jump into a boxing ring and fight an invisible Muhammad Ali."

Wolters comments, alongside Danish counterpart Maj. Gen. Max Nielsen and Dutch ally Lt. Gen. Dennis Luyt, came Monday at the Air Force Association's annual Air, Space and Cyber conference.

"From our observations of their [Russian] activities in the area of command and control, they are extremely challenged. So our sense is, from a fifth generation standpoint that we would have great success," Wolters said.

Luyt, whose country was the second international partner to receive Lockheed Martin's "jack of all trades" fighter, highlighted the F-35's asymmetric advantage over any other fielded jet.

-snip-

Trump has been pushing Boeing's F-18 instead, but it isn't a stealth fighter.

https://www.rt.com/usa/371388-trump-f35-replacement-cost/

To give the jet comparable stealth capabilities, Boeing would have to change the shape of the plane entirely. In order to replace the F-35, Boeing would need to redesign the F-18 from the ground up, which could take fifteen years to develop – if nothing goes wrong.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. I think it's about manipulating stocks so that some speculators can make a lot of money.

[Wounded Bear]

4. This is probably it...

kind of schizophrenic about Boeing, of course, following the AF1 fiasco.

Hard to attribute ulterior motives to Trump, as he so obviously is floundering like a goldfish on a coffee table.

[NutmegYankee]

2. There is a value to having large numbers of jets, even if less capable.

Even the best jet fighter doesn't like to tangle with groups of jets. We could modernize the older fighter electronics and probably build another 1000 for the cost of 100 F-35s.

I'm not saying abandon the F-35 entirely, but the cost of each is so high that we only plan to have 400 or so now.

[CanonRay]

3. I thought this whole thing was strange

of all the thousands of things a President-elect could choose to speak on, he picks the F-35 which I'm sure he knows zero about.

[former9thward]

5. The F-35 boondoggle being defended here.

Wow. How things change ....

[sarisataka]

7. Things change fast

[DanTex]

10. Many started warming up to the F-35 when it came out that Bernie voted in favor of it.

[Trenzalore]

12. Bernie is a politician

One who mostly supports things I agree with but he is a politician none the less.

[Trenzalore]

11. Yeah...

The F35 has been a financial handout out to the defense industry for over the past 15 years

[Ford_Prefect]

6. The outrageous costs alone make this an easy target.

There is no reason to expect the f-35 in combat use for at least 4 years if ever. It simply hasn't got that ability yet and won't for 2 years or more due to delays in the complex software and systems that enable it.

That is as of today the version of software and hardware integration that will make it a functioning combat interceptor with the ability to successfully attack incoming aircraft will not be INSTALLED on the plane until 2 years from now.

Once that is installed it must be tested and debugged and operational on enough planes in enough locations and squadrons to become meaningful as a weapons system in the field. 4 years is the best estimate to date for that condition IF all the troublesome issues, and there are MANY of them which dog the F-35 daily, are resolved.

Needless to say this estimate leaves aside any analysis of further development costs, purchase prices for each of 3 variants, or service, parts and ongoing support. The potential cost of support is already forcing the Navy to rethink other programs and plans. The Air Force is gutting support for existing aircraft in order to afford the run-up costs of the present F-35 program.

Not bloody likely say I.

Trump is up to manipulation to his or his friends financial advantage, or pushing the dominoes over to suit Putin's future plans, or both.

[Bradical79]

8. Just an easy target

It's cost and problems have been publicly talked about for years now. It's easy pandering for Trump.

[hunter]

9. The modern international economy is so intertwined and brittle...

... that any direct confrontation between major powers would shatter it all like tempered glass.

The F-35 isn't a machine built to "deter" any major power like Russia.

Instead it's a pork-barrel project designed to stomp the faces of of our small-fry "enemies."

[EricMaundry]

13. Trump is Putin's poodle

[Calculating]

14. No, the f35 is just a bad idea

We don't need hundred+ million dollar fighter planes. Who would we even fight against with them? We already have a nuclear deterrent, so there's no need to be afraid of actual war with china/russia.

[Rex]

15. What good is the plane if it cannot fly? Trump is picking high profile events

and making decisions on them to look presidential. IMO. He probably is somewhat clueless as to if the plane works or not.