Posted on 07/27/2019 7:55:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When something isn’t very good, someone may joke that it’s 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 wasn’t 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 Force’s 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-35’s guns aren’t 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-35’s design and production plan, which involved starting to build the planes before the final design specifications were set.”
Just last month, the Pentagon’s 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 wouldn’t save the plane, but we shouldn’t 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 isn’t very good.
Not very good isn’t 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 it’s not “good enough for government work.”
These days if the flyaway cost is under $100M you got a bargain. I don’t know where they pulled that figure cited in the article.
“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.”
And while I don’t agree with your conclusion... you put your finger on the problem with Gen5 tactical aircraft... cost. Look at the Russian & Chinese entrants into the Gen5 competition. They are 1) very late on developement. 2) less ambitious in their stealth. 3) cost estimates suggest that they will never be fielded in any significant numbers. Where have we heard this before? Ah, yes, the F-22 program. This is why the F-35 program with it’s international co-development was going to be the way to go. The jet is at least affordable. And the weapon you have is better than the one you don’t.
How surprising that one of the companies behind the LCS, the one size fits all ship for the Navy that doesn’t; would also be behind the one size fits all plane that doesn’t, for every military branch.
When people tell me it is faster and more powerful than current jets because it carries stuff internally, I point that this single engine beast is heavier than a twin engine F15 and only has 75% of its power and wings. I get all kinds of argument against the basic physics question I am pausing that have nothing to do with physicis. No one has yet convinced me I was wrong to point that out.
The issue with the Bradley was that it could not be carried in a C130, but it is a hell of a weapon, killed more tanks than the M1 in Iraq. An army of relatively cheaper Bradley could have stopped those Soviet tanks.
Maybe it is thankful Obama shut down the LCS.
And you could imagine what would happen to a pilot’s career (operation or test) if they said they didn’t like it.
Old former McDonald Douglas in St. Louis could have built a better one. Screwed by politics. And did I hear correctly somewhere that we can’t even build an F22 anymore as the factory modules were intentionally destroyed? Also heard leaks and espionage has exposed too much of its tech to china to continue it?
Pricing is for the A model only, but LRIP 11 had the unit cost down to $89 million each.
LRIP 12-14 are to be combined and are expected to produce an F-35A for $80 million.
Without AWACS or combat controllers to point out threats, all fighters are unsuitable to their task. Increasing numbers of S400 systems make it damned near impossible for any aircrafts to fly through and survive. Where have the overwhelming number of naval engagements occurred? Littoral zones.
It seems many folks here gained their extensive knowledge on these matters from playing video games, not from actual hands-on and in-the-field experience.
There’s a weapon for every situation, and when a situation occurs somewhere, you have to marshal all the pieces and parts together somewhere and formulate a strategy and then, if necessary, put your plan into action. It’s very resource intensive.
The F-35 is designed to go after and take out S400 defenses, and older SAM’s so that 4th generation fighters and drones can operate. It’s not designed to seek and destroy fighters until after SAM systems are neutralized; which is it’s specialty.
I suspect the Israelis have already employed them successfully in Syria, but since I’m not in their chain of command, I haven’t received any actual confirmation. I’ve read articles about air attacks happening in Syria right under the noses of S400 systems...go figure.
The F-35 is a lousy airframe. The same electronics in the F-35 are being applied to unmanned vehicles. The stealth in those is far better and the airframes don’t have the human in them to slow things down. Remote control is working extremely well.
The F-35 is DOA.
In 81 they did it in Iraq with f16s.
The reason Lockheed won was that they risked it all on a test just before the proposals were submitted, and demonstrated their “high-risk” approach to vertical take-off. This turned the high-risk into no risk - but very risky for Lockheed just as the proposal were due.
ANY company back then could have done better - that was before politics and AF acquisition got in the way. Martin Marietta never even had a lobbyist until they “lost” the Apollo capsule design (they had done Mercury and Gemini). They had to be called in to “fix” the problems the “winner” had which caused the fire killing three astronauts during ground testing. Pity . . .
My fighter jock friends tell me that this is so superior to anything else out there it isn’t funny; that all new planes have these exact early problems (”the flight manual of a new aircraft is written in blood,” one test pilot told me). I trust their opinions.
As I posted above, every fighter jock I know thinks it’s the best plane on earth, but with early problems like all new aircraft.
Makes sense. The USAF buy is by far the largest. The -C will probably come in higher than expected as it will (mostly) be fielded last.
The Harrier’s Pegasis engine was also very powerful. Think about all the thrust needed to lift a loaded aircraft without the benefit of moving air hitting the face of the fan blades. STOVL aircraft have hugely powerful engines for that reason.
Using that logic, nothing any pilot says about any aircraft is valid for anything.
I used to have a book written about the F-15. It predicted the new F-15 would be the biggest failure ever. A totally worthless plane that was also too expensive to maintain. It also doubted the F-16 would be a success.
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.