Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-35 looking more like white elephant
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609

Posted on 01/13/2011 11:28:42 AM PST by too_cool_for_skool

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, has become the most expensive weapons program ever, drawing increased scrutiny at a time of tight public finances.

Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.

...

Defense officials say the original cost estimates have now doubled to make each plane's price tag reach some 92 million dollars.

At the same time, the contract awarded in 2001 had been planned to last 10 years, but has been extended to 2016 because of testing and design issues.

...

Private analysts say the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.

"The incredibly unfortunate phrase 'too big to fail' applies to this aircraft more than any other defense program," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; defense; f35; lockheed; missinglink; navair; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: too_cool_for_skool
I was in the Air Force when McNamara foisted the F-111 on us. Having both AF and Navy use the same airplane would "save a billion dollars." (How quaint that sounds now. Then, a billion was big money. Now it's a rounding error in ObamaCare.)

While I was a student at the Air War College, our guest speaker one day was one of the "Whiz Kids." During the question period following his talk, when my turn came, I challenged him on the phony "systems analysis" that went into the F-111 decision. I still remember the round of applause I got from the several hundred of my fellow officers in the auditorium. (Having a PhD in mathematics helps immensely in situations like that.)

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the F-35 is "deja vu all over again."

41 posted on 01/13/2011 2:34:22 PM PST by JoeFromSidney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I work in the aerospace defense industry so I’m not naive to how government bumbling and shifting requirements can drive up costs. But the contractor is often just as at fault through poor program management and shoddy engineering. Yet there is little financial penalty since most of these programs are cost-plus - the contractor continues bumbling along while the government pays for it.

Lockheed has maneuvered itself into a good position. Program costs have exploded (+100%) and the schedule has slipped another 6 years (+60%). But they’ll get rather rewarded for their efforts because this program is “critical” to national security and must be funded. Despite a terrible track record with the F-22 and F-35, they will win future programs as well since the USAF in its myopia awarded all of the 5th-Generation fighter jets to Lockheed, effectively squeezing out Northrop and Boeing and leaving Lockheed with a monopoly on jet fighters.

You want to fix the national budget? Get defense contractors under control.


42 posted on 01/13/2011 3:47:27 PM PST by too_cool_for_skool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
Tri-service aircraft = FAIL.

History contradicts your inept assertion.


43 posted on 01/13/2011 3:55:14 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool
Yahoo
44 posted on 01/13/2011 3:56:37 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
F-22....great platform, could be converted to navy use with some degree of compromise on stealth...

You fail to mention the extensive engineering and money involved; neither of which would be minor, to navalize the Raptor.

and the good old boys of GW Bush started this whole affair

The JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996.

45 posted on 01/13/2011 4:07:21 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife
I imagine it’s surmountable.

Easy conclusion for a keyboard warrior.

46 posted on 01/13/2011 4:09:22 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool
F-35 looking more like white elephant

Seems that people soon forget the long and at times troubled development of just about every great weapon system. The much vaunted F-22 went through just about the same cost overruns and delays that the F-35 is experiencing. The C-17 was another example of an aircraft that the hand-wringers yelling "cancel" because it was costing too much to develop. The F-14 had its own problems in development, yet I still read here on FR how much that aircraft is missed.

There are other opinions on the F-35, especially the B model:

Marine F-35 Problems Are Fixable

Author:Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Date:Thursday, January 13, 2011

Last week, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, announced that he had placed the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on “double secret probation.” The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has two years to fix problems with the air frame and engine. It is noteworthy that the Secretary said that the other two parts of the F-35 program for the Air Force and Navy are proceeding satisfactorily.

Building a STOVL aircraft is an extraordinarily challenging undertaking. The aircraft has to be able to operate in both vertical and horizontal dimensions, have a useful operational range and carry a meaningful payload. The same power plant engine must be used to power the aircraft in both flight modes. Only two STOVL systems have ever been deployed, the Harrier and the Yak-38 Forger, and the latter was a failure. The former was a notable success particularly in the Falklands war and Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the Harrier is based on 1960s technology. The Harrier production line closed in 1997 and remanufacture of older versions into the current Harrier II Plus configuration ended in 2003.

A new STOVL aircraft is needed. But to meet emerging threats and new mission requirements, it must have stealth characteristics, a supersonic speed and the kind of advanced avionics that can cope with the modern battlefield. This is particularly difficult when one is building a plane that can also land like a helicopter. This further complicates aircraft design. A hinge flap on an inlet door had to be redesigned when it compromised the F-35B’s stealth characteristics.

What exactly are the F-35B’s current problems? As the Secretary noted, they include both structural and engine issues. Apparently, a bulkhead cracked during testing. While it has been redesigned, additional testing of other structural elements to ensure against a repeat of the problem is ongoing. Lockheed has said that resolving structural issues will not require replacement of the aluminum structures, a move that could add cost and weight.

The engine problems are more challenging, which is to be expected given the nature of the power plant required by a STOVL aircraft. In vertical flight mode some of the components of the lifting portion of the power system have not operated as expected, creating mechanical and heating issues. These are not fundamental technical problems but questions of component design and subsystem integration. The engine manufacturer asserts that it can fix these problems without adding weight or cost.

It is likely that the Lockheed team will be able to resolve the issues that have delayed the STOVL portion of the F-35 program. The challenge is to do it while the clock is ticking.


47 posted on 01/13/2011 4:46:32 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

F-111 was indeed superior in many rspects to the F-15E and now the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is inferior in most performance categories to the F-14D that it replaced.


48 posted on 01/13/2011 5:29:12 PM PST by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

The JSF will go down as the greatest failure and boondoggle in the history of aviation. The TFX program will be a model of success and good judgement in comparison. And the only reason Lockheed execs shouldn’t be sent to prison for fraud and bilking the taxpayers is that much of Congress would have to share cells with them. This is what happens when defense programs become more important as jobs pork than as military weapons.


49 posted on 01/13/2011 7:53:01 PM PST by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

The F4 Phantom II became a tri-service aircraft due to its performance. It was designed solely as a navy interceptor.


50 posted on 01/13/2011 8:37:49 PM PST by rmlew (You want change? Vote for the most conservative electable in your state or district.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

Now in my 39th year in aerospace, I will tell you it is NOT “control” of contractors that’s the problem.
Politicians designing systems by voting district (2nd engine supplier for F-35).
Establishing a contract price based upon an order quantity and then cutting the quantity in half. (Drives up unit price)
DoD treating the acquisition field like career purgatory. (They leave about the time they learn the ropes)
“Poor Program Mgmt”, driven by late funding, changing requirements, followed by customer pressure to meet the original schedule by cutting testing.
Customers end running the Prime contractor by going direct to the subcontractor.
It’s amazing to hear the former military come to work for industry and exclaim, “Oh, I didn’t realize what we did to you guys.”


51 posted on 01/13/2011 8:51:20 PM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife

i’ve never met a carrier pilot that would agree with you and I have met a bunch having 2 in the family.


52 posted on 01/13/2011 9:15:07 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
You are entitled to your opinion Your own "facts" you are not. The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is a tandem two-seat, twin-engined, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor fighter/fighter-bomber originally developed for the United States Navy by McDonnell Aircraft. It first entered service in 1960 with the U.S. Navy. Proving highly adaptable, it was also adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force, and by the mid-1960s had became a major part of their respective air wings. MD actually funded most of the original work. Tri-service A/C - 'developed' as a tri-service A.C - like the F-111, V-22 Osprey and the soon to be ill-fated F35 have proven to be very costly and many cases, failures. Enjoy your day.
53 posted on 01/13/2011 9:22:45 PM PST by ASOC (What are you doing now that Mexico has become OUR Chechnya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; too_cool_for_skool
F-22....great platform, could be converted to navy use with some degree of compromise on stealth... F-23, not as good as F-22, but could be modified on the drawing board to be the navy and jarheads new fighter.(instead, the chinese have miraculously copied the F-23) Instead of these scenario’s, lets just put together an aircraft cobbled out of the harrier, f-16 and a little bit of f-14 for good measure.... The f-35 was destined to be a failure from the start, and the good old boys of GW Bush started this whole affair....similar to the whiz kids of kennedy...dump the whole damn project, get the f-23 modifed for carrier use, and build a whole bunch more of the f-22...( I know, this makes too much sense, which means it will never happen ) just sayin’.

Apparently, the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 BlackWidow was stealthier and faster than the YF-22 Raptor. The reason the Raptor won was a mix of it being more maneuverable (2-D thrust-vectoring helped here), being less unconventional than the BlackWidow design, being perceived as easier to convert to the NATF concept (the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter that was cancelled later on), and also Lockheed's past delivery as compared to McD's fiasco with the A-12.

It is important to note that both designs passed the ATF requirements for a 5th Gen fighter with flying marks, and any design would have been superlative to anything that was flying then, is flying now, or will be flying in the future. There was even a plan to bring back the YF-23 as an interim bomber. Thus, it is not really accurate to say the YF-23 was not as good as the YF-22 because (in two areas, namely stealth and super-cruise speed) it was better, and it primarily lost out due to the NATF issue plus a couple other areas. Both aircraft were, in essence, equal to each other and would have served the USA very well.

As for the Chinese copying the YF-23 design ...no, they have not done that. What they have done is copy the (cancelled) Soviet/Russian MiG-MFI (MiG 1.42/1.44) design of the late 1990s. It is basically a MiG-MFI design, with the one change being side intakes. Here is a small pic of the MiG-MFI ...exactly the same plane as the J-20 apart from the MiG having intakes at the bottom (Eurofighter style) while the 'original' J-20 has intakes on the sides (F-15/Raptor style):


54 posted on 01/13/2011 11:09:40 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

keyboard warrior, right... go to hell, on your way how about I shove my 20+ years of service up your ass.


55 posted on 01/13/2011 11:52:17 PM PST by McCloud-Strife ( USA 1776-2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: McCloud-Strife; All

Two words inertial dampeners.......


56 posted on 01/14/2011 4:16:31 AM PST by KevinDavis (If you buy a car from GM, you are supporting Obama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


57 posted on 01/14/2011 3:09:23 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: too_cool_for_skool

You nailed it.


58 posted on 01/14/2011 4:03:11 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson