F'd: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World's Worst New Warplane

Real Clear Defense ^ | August 14, 2015 | David Axe

[C19fan]

From all the recent sounds of celebrating coming out of Washington, D.C., you might think the Pentagon’s biggest, priciest and most controversial warplane development had accelerated right past all its problems. The price tag—currently an estimated $1 trillion to design, build and operate 2,400 copies—is steadily going down. Production of dozens of the planes a year for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps is getting easier. Daily flight tests increasingly are hitting all the right marks. Or so proponents would have you believe.

[C19fan]

Mr. Axe, the man behind the defense blog War is Boring, is a major critic of the F-35. In this piece he argues the plane was doomed from the start with its insistence the JSF include S/VTOL capability to please the Marines. Trying to accommodate that ruined the whole design. Also, I hypothesize the British were probably behind this push too because they need a S/VTOL plane for their jump ramp carriers. Sounds like we would of been better off just giving the Marines their own plane.

[nascarnation]

My SIL works on the VTOL package as a peon (but quite well compensated) engineer. He’s been extremely busy lately working on quality issues.

[Secret Agent Man]

I actually think this was a keep-alive program for Lockheed Martin. In the documentary about this the LM folks talked about how this would pretty much be it for them if they didnt win this. They were not making commercial planes en masse like Boeing.

[jospehm20]

I don’t know if this will work out but it seems to me that many of the weapon systems we use are proclaimed POS when they first come out and end up being very good later.

[nascarnation]

Could be.
I was involved with the Abrams tank program back in the 70s.

Chrysler clearly had a deficient entry but was picked as winner to help them with their financial problems.

[alloysteel]

VTOL is a helicopter. Trying to turn a forward-thrusting jet-propelled airframe into a vertical ascent-descent is an exercise in futility, until we develop a reliable anti-gravity platform, and the physics just are not there yet.

Contact the engineers behind the development of the S.H.I.E.L.D strike force. I know that is real because I see the series on TV....

[Jim from C-Town]

I never understood why we would need one type of fighter jet for the entire military. The Marines have a different mission than the Air force and Navy. They should certainly be allowed a separate war plane. Also, does the use of one plane really make for a better fighting force?

I am sure lots of people with more experience and know how than I have thought this out, but with the massive incompetence in all things government, maybe not.

[shibumi]

"...doomed from the start with its insistence the JSF include S/VTOL capability..."

[Secret Agent Man]

It is just staggering how much money has been sunk into this for so little return, I believe this is one of the main reasons.

[PAR35]

You young pups think you know everything. Try Googling the Hawker Harrier from the mid 1960s. VTOL has been around for half a century. Longer than that if you go back to the Kestrel.

[SkyDancer]

And Mozart said in reply that there were the right amount of notes. No more. No less.

[Dr. Thorne]

The F-35 performing aerobatics.

[Maceman]

Too many notes.

[jagusafr]

Yup. Military Industrial Complex. It’s been a tremendous waste of resources and some folks have gotten rich.

[shibumi]

"Also, does the use of one plane really make for a better fighting force?"

In my (not-so-humble) opinion the variety and purposeful effectiveness of our multiple aircraft designs is a huge part of what made US a superpower. ("Made" as in past tense.)

Simple example:
The A10 does things in close air support far better than F15, F16 or F18s.

The guys on the ground want the A10.
But you wouldn't necessarily want to fly it against a MIG29 in a dogfight.

Having only one fighter jet in the arsenal strikes me like saying that we'll only have one gun for every soldier. Then you tell your design team you want an "Assault/Long Range/Sniper/Bolt Action/Select Fire/Pistol/Grenade Launcher."

[shibumi]

Unfortunately Mozart doesn’t work for Lockheed-Martin.

[Nep Nep]

How’s that old saying go? “An elephant is a horse designed by a committee.”

[SkyDancer]

Well I was replying to the picture posted and the comment on it. If it was up to me and I worked at Lockheed way up in management I would have gone for upgrading the F-16. Best air superiority fighter made ( yeah I know I’ll get arguments on that)

[SkyDancer]

Tom Hulce should have gotten the Oscar for his performance in Amadeus.

[afsnco]

They’re fielding this bird with only about 60-70% of the software written for it. Just the other day they were testing it for how it took off and landed in wet conditions. So, given this, I’m unsure how much credence can be given to criticism. An incomplete aircraft that sucks may be far different than the final product.

Lots of our very good, very successful military equipment was heavily criticized when first fielded, because we were still figuring it out. The criticism usually came from leftists who hated big bucks being spent on defense, in the hope of getting the big buck defense project canceled.

The F-22, an effective 5th generation air dominance fighter, was curtailed and canceled with the promise that the F-35 would be fully funded. This may be an effort to renege on that commitment.