Posted on 07/27/2019 7:55:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When something isnt very good, someone may joke that its still good enough for government work. Maybe the thinker who coined that expression had the F-35 program in mind.
The F-35 (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter) is a military jet that was supposed to be able to do it all. The program was started in the 1990s with the intention that it could serve the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines and their various mission needs with only minimal changes to the initial platform. That would deliver cost savings across decades as one jet replaced (at least) three other types of plane. It seemed like a great idea in concept.
But, predictably, the jet that tried to do everything ended up having more problems than successes. By the time designers had added stealth technology, short runway functionality, and various weapon systems, they had a jet that was too bulky, too slow and too costly. The result is an expensive jack-of-all-trades, but a master of none, The National Interest's Dave Majumdar writes, calling the JSF one of the 5 worst fighter jets ever made.
It wasnt supposed to be this way. By this time, Lockheed was supposed to be churning out F-35 jets at a cost of $40-$50 million each. Instead, the military now says it wants to buy 470 of the fighters, at a cost of $34 billion. That would be more than $80 million per plane, twice what was promised.
Yet even as it tries to buy more of these planes, throwing good money after bad, the Pentagon admits the JSF program is failing. The Air Forces top testing official wrote in 2016 that the F-35 is not effective and not suitable across the required mission areas and against currently fielded treats.
It also falls short of existing platforms. Military analyst Dan Grazier writes, In the air-to-air mission, the current F-35 is similarly incapable of matching legacy aircraft like the F-15, F-16, and F-22. And when it comes to supporting troops on the ground, one job the JSF was supposed to be designed for, testing shows the F-35 is incapable of performing most of the functions required for an acceptable close support aircraft, functions the A-10 is performing daily in current combat. One reason for that failure is that the F-35s guns arent very accurate. A report noted that pilots routinely miss their targets because of software failures.
Plus, contractor Lockheed Martin struggles to even keep the F-35 in the air. A handful of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters built during the early days of the program could become unflyable by 2026, after just 2,100 flight hours, Popular Mechanics wrote this year. The culprit is almost certainly the F-35s design and production plan, which involved starting to build the planes before the final design specifications were set.
Just last month, the Pentagons Inspector General said Lockheed may have over-billed the military by more than $10 million for spare parts that were never delivered. We determined that the DoD did not receive RFI F‑35 spare parts in accordance with contract requirements and paid performance incentive fees on the sustainment contracts based on inflated and unverified F‑35A aircraft availability hours, a report concluded. Spare parts wouldnt save the plane, but we shouldnt be wasting money on parts we never even get.
The Washington Post reports that the late senator John McCain called the F-35 a poster child for acquisition malpractice a scandal and a tragedy at different points during his tenure as Senate Armed Services Committee chairman. I frequently disagreed with Sen. McCain, but he was correct here. Even after all the time and money invested, the F-35 isnt very good.
Not very good isnt good enough for the men and women in military uniform. They deserve the best tools our country can give them. The over-budget, under-delivering F-35 is not such a tool, and its not good enough for government work.
You are 100% correct on costing.
With inflation escalation factors, the F35 is not much more expensive than the latest block F-16 and it is a far more capable aircraft than the F-16. For comparison, the Rafale and EuroFighter are in the 130-160 million euro range. Modern aircraft are expensive. If we want to drive the cost of F35 down, best thing to do is buy them in the most economic acquisition rate and volume
People fail to take into account that the production volume of the F35 is less than half originally planned
The JSF is not an A10 and never will be because it was never intended to be one. The A10 and the F35 have very different missions and while the F35 can cover a majority of A10 missions, the A10 can not cover any of the F35 primary missions. The A10 has very little air to air ( being charitable there-we do have warthog pilots here) capability and absolutely zero low observables or countermeasures capability. The A10 is mainly anti tank and CAS and cannot perform the deep interdiction missions in highly contested air space that is the forte of the F35
The A10 will be a great plane to have after the F35 has prepared the way enough to allow the A10 to operate with a reasonable chance completing their mission and returning safely. Especially after all the smart weapons have been burned through, which will be faster than anyone expects.
Claims that the F35 is a dog in air combat will come as news to the pilots that fly them because they seem to be doing just fine
Ironically, heard exactly the same arguments being against the F16, F15 and A10 back when they were new. The F16 and F15 were to complex, they didnt work, the electronics failed so we needed to buy more F4 Phantoms and just can the overly complex, underdeveloped, unreliable and costly new F16 and F15.
The A10 was too expensive, not survivable and a waste of money. Opponents branded the A10 white elephant that need to be cancelled in favor of a turbine engined version of the P51 Mustang called the Piper Enforcer
All that is old is new again
At least the Lockheed plane is somewhat pleasant to look at, they would have had to keep the Boeing plane in hangars to avoid stampedes.
LOL Good one!
Thanks for the good perspective.
Because it is “not sexy” to build a slow, surviveable ground support aircraft. The old A-10s will be retired eventually, the company that made them (Republic) has been gone almost 4 decades, and many of the depots that made replacement parts from scratch (like McClellan AFB in Sacramento) closed in the 1990s. The USAF is obviously still servicing them, but who knows for how long ....
I thought of the F-111 from the start. The kitchen sink approach rarely succeeds.
The same faction of USAF that stopped the F-22 in its tracks are still trying to kill the A-10, no?
I work on a military contract with AF mechanics. Very passionate folks when it comes to their planes. While just a laymen when it comes to US military aircraft I can provide a quick synopsis, based on conversations with these guys.....
F-22 .... the baddest motherf*cker in the sky. During war games it will shoot planes as they’re taking off and more than one at a time
F-15 .... an absolute beast of a plane that is a pain in the a$$ to keep flying but with its radars & avionics, still one of the baddest planes flying. I was told that during some conflict the Israeli’s were having with whoever, at the time, Israeli F15s were shooting the other guys planes as they were taking off, from way way way out in the Mediterranean
F16 .... still an absolute beast of a ground attack fighter, but an older plane. Our F16s are amazing, but upgrades can be made. They liken the F16 to that really fun sports car that you love to drive, given its smaller size compared to the others.
A10 .... When you ask these guys about the A10, if they had the chance to work on them, you can sense the emotion in how they talk about it. Tidbit, the cockpit is offset from the center-line of the plane since it was designed around the gun. To the man: keep the basic design, newer-more powerful engines, upgrade avionics and radars and keep building them. During his tour in A’stan, my nephew loved it when they showed up for CAS. Told me that one flyover and the gunfight was over, whether they dropped ordinance or not. Haj was that terrified of the plane. Of course, you only knew it was there is if it was shooting at you, with the gun, or did a flyby as they are very quiet.....
The F35 is no match for the A -10. but it can commend a drone, with grond input, that is.
Like the Aurora? Mach 5 plus?
They got stuff we have no idea they have.
Just like the F 111. It’ll show up when needed though.
Problem is that no human can fly some of those aircraft, unless they have figured out special pressure suits for the pilots so they can handle the G forces.
I had to laugh at your comment. Are you kidding?
Lockheed killed the F-22 to divert funds to the 35 to keep the program alive because they figured they could make more money, a lot more money, by selling the pig all over the world. They were hoping for another F-16.
Instead this is the most botched program in history along with the littoral combat chips. People should go to jail over this one. People have started and retired careers on this airplane it has been so long in development. It is a monumental poster child for the Golden Fleece award and it has been for 27 years now.
The program began n 1992 and first flight was in 2006. Damn good thing we aren’t at war isn’t it? We’d be screwed woudln’t we?
The feds don’t pull the plug because Lockheed has too many friends, the program has gone too far, there is no alternative, people are foolishly hoping this will work, they are whistling through the graveyard.
If the pentagon and administration had any brains at all they would pull the plug on this pig and retool the f-22 line real quick but with someone else building the airplanes besides lockheed. They would also beg Boeing to build a few wings of F-15 bomb trucks to at least give us a fair chance of somehow winning a war with the chicoms.
The 35 is a money pit that has made a lot of people wealthy. They can live with their treason because they don’t have a conscience.
Hi. I know for a fact the tooling was preserved. There were many of us in Acquisition that knew the line might need to be opened up again. We should have bought many more.
It is the greatest fighter ever built, but the F-23 would have been even better, had it not been for maintenance concerns for the model.
Please I saw the documentary on the x plane between boeing and lockheed martin.
Boeing changed their design close to the end to be far better than their previous entry and the only reason lockheed won it was because they were going to go under without this contract. they kept them alive awarding the plane to them because boeing had commercial aircraft they were making money on. lockheed didn’t.
For their purposes.
The article was that it was not as good as other machines for different arenas.
Warthog is a good piece of equipment and when boys’ lives are at stake, they need the best for the situation.
The F 22 has been a better plane all along but not sexy enough for the brass. When the plug was pulled on it, many of us knew immediately it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
I knew this was a bad idea from the get go. The F22 is a much better A/V overall. The F35 has jump jet capabilities, but that limits your payload.. You need two engines to keep up with the new technologies with speed.. The F22 is twice as fast and has super cruise, plus double payload...
Reminds me of the multi-function printers I’ve seen / had...can do lots of things but not very good at anything.
Sack the people in the Pentagon who pushed these crappy programs and get back to weapons systems that really work.
The tooling is not scrapped...it is in storage. However, it would cost prohibitive to re-start the line. IMHO, shutting down the F-22 line was a crime.
[For their purposes.
The article was that it was not as good as other machines for different arenas.
Warthog is a good piece of equipment and when boys lives are at stake, they need the best for the situation.]
https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-hourly-cost-of-military-aircraft-2014-12
The graphic quoted in the article above is something I’m taking on trust, which is something I shouldn’t do, because it’s authored by James Fallows, a liberal who ragged on our major weapon systems before Desert Storm in 1991 showed that they worked just fine. But the cost per flight hour numbers make sense. The Reaper’s weight is 1/5 of the A-10, and fuel is a major part of the cost of operating an airplane. And heavier planes use up more kerosene aka aviation fuel, which is why airplanes impose luggage surcharges based on weight. Anyway, drones have provided much of the close air support against ISIS in Iraq.
The unspoken bonus is that when a drone goes down, you don’t lose a pilot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.