via The Hill
Program head Lt. Col. Christopher Bogdan asserted that “the program is making slow and steady progress on all fronts.”Critical mass has arrived.
These claims are based more in wishful thinking than reality. Between exorbitant costs and questionable capabilities, the F-35 math just doesn’t add up. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a plane that won’t advance our national security, at the expense of more important defense programs, just doesn’t make sense.
F-35 boosters have routinely cited two key pieces of evidence to back up their upbeat assertions. The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer claims that the project’s astonishing $1 trillion in lifetime operating costs is coming down slightly. And the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently repeated Pentagon claims that the projected procurement cost for buying over 2,400 of the planes will be “only” $332 billion, a reduction of about 3% from prior estimates.
There are two problems with these optimistic projections. First, they aren’t believable. As long-time defense budget analyst Winslow Wheeler of the Project on Government Oversight has noted, the GAO figures on alleged reductions in the price of the F-35 are based on “rejiggering inflation numbers” and “lesser hardware requirements” accompanied by claims of cost reductions at the subcontractor level that have not been verified.
Second, and most importantly, even if the new claims of a “cheaper” F-35 were true, it would still be the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken by the Pentagon. That would include spending an average of $12.6 billion per year between now and 2037, a pace that the GAO notes will require the Air Force to “increase funds steeply over the next few years” while posing “long-term affordability risks.” This is particularly true because the Air Force also wants to develop a new long-range bomber, buy substantial quantities of new refueling tankers, and purchase a next generation of unmanned aerial systems. The money just isn’t there to do all of these things at once. Something will have to give.
Congress critters live on every word of this blog.
Cuts have to be made and those closed door briefings by the Navy are having an impact.
The F-35 doesn't deliver on the promises made and cheaper more effective alternatives are available. Stick a fork in it. This turkey is done.
Congress critters are more concerned about JOBS.
ReplyDeleteThe military could be buying gold plated cinder blocks for all they care, as long as the JOBS are protected, it really doesn't matter.
By the way, Winslow Wheeler is not someone I would call a credible source or credible.. anything.
See Exhitbit A: http://youmustbefromaway.com/2011/11/09/winslow-t-wheeler-an-idiot-in-search-of-a-village/
Exhibit B: http://wombat-socho.dreamwidth.org/1017615.html
Exhibit C: http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/rebuttal-of-de-rugys-and-winslow-wheelers-blatant-lies-about-defense-spending/
it goes on. He was palling around with the 1980s "reformers' who shit all over the M1, the Tomahawk, the F-15, the Tomcat, or ANY other weapons program more advanced that transistors and homogeneous steel.
David, you're not someone I would call a credible source on this particular subject...
DeleteWow. Three unsubstantiated and inflamatory blogposts! What better way to make your case?
DeleteYou got something a little more credible? You can't drag a man's reputation through the mud with nothing more than a few nasty blog posts.
Doug, let's not forget David receives his paycheck from Lockheed so I'm sure that money is NOT AT ALL a reason for him to lie to defend the F-35.
Deletewait! what????? David is on LM's payroll? are you sure?
DeleteSomeone a while ago found a profile of a David McSpadden that held a position at some contractor for LM and posted it in the comments section of one of your articles a while ago. I'll need to go back and look for it later, but I accused him of being the same guy to see how he'd react and he has so far not yet denied it.
DeleteBradley IFV - death-trap that would have gotten more soldiers killed in that rolling incinerator had it not been for Col Burton and even then it was only marginally better.
DeleteF-15 - before the Fighter Mafia attacked it by applying the EM formula, it was supposed to be a 70000lb swing-wing aircraft, Mach 2.5+ sled
M1 Abrams - the turbine is gas hog and should have been diesel.
These programs were deeply flawed and as many programs like the F35 still are. the Reformer goal was that defense contractors shouldn't be given the keys to the treasury when it comes to fielding platform for the military. And given the shortcomings of the F35, that lesson keeps needing to be re-learned by the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace and the defense contractors.
Try again Mr. Robinson.
DeleteThere a lot more David McSpadden's out there than you realize.
Hell, I met one who was a County Coroner in Missouri.
I doubt most of the Congress critters know the first thing about military aircraft. That said, Lockheed has ensured enough support for this program where it isn't going to go away despite how much Winslow Wheeler screams about it. There are F-35 related jobs in 48 states IIRC, a huge portion of the aerospace industry involved to some degree or another, the USAF's future tactical airpower plan built around this aircraft, the USMC's having made serious investments in it, plus hundreds of international orders from customers who expect to get something.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is there is nothing so unique or unusual about this aircraft where it can't be made as affordable as any number of fighters in service today. It won't be easy but there are no alternatives here. F-22 production is done and thousands of new F-15s has never been a realistic option. The F-16 has no more growth potential without a major redesign and the end result of that redesign would still be inferior to a new fighter with LO characteristics. The USAF adopting the Super Hornet would give them no new capabilities and the Super Hornet isn't enough for the Navy in the long term either. Meanwhile new Harriers haven't been built in decades so you'd be throwing out all of the work on a future STOVL strike fighter for nothing.
The only valid alternatives are new designs which only exist paper. How many years will we have to wait for these? How many years can we afford to wait?
Winslow Wheeler oddly enough has had no problem twisting the numbers to suit his agenda in the past and has probably cited the GAO in support of many of his previous ramblings. Now that they say something positive, I'm guessing he'd tell you they are liars that can't be trusted unlike himself. The man is a hack who'd portray himself as some reformer and savior of the federal government. He alludes to the fighter mafia and other past "reformers" yet ignores they were more often wrong than right. They'd have using tanks featuring all of the technology the M60A1 had to offer and trying to overwhelm enemy air defense networks through sheer numbers of fighters without BVR capability, "smart" weapons, and other "extravagances".
I DON'T BUY IT!!!!
Deletei am so sick of hearing that there are no alternatives to the F-35 that it makes me sick. so what if we have to wait 10 years for a new fighter? at least it'll be the right fighter and it'll work.
the F-35 is an example of pork and nothing else. if the airplane had value then they wouldn't have structured its construction in 1000 different places. additionally THEY'RE STILL HANDING OUT CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MONSTROSITY!!!
tell me how thats all designed to lower costs. its not! we all know its not too. this is intense bullshit and i spit in the faces of leadership that have sold us this flying piece of shit.
historians will too. you want to know whats fucked up about the American way of business? take a look at the F-35! want to know how fucked up this generation of military leaders are? take a look at the F-35! want to see the seeds of our loss in the next war? TAKE A FUCKING LOOK AT THE F-35!!!!
I don't buy it either. The US has the techology necessary to build the right plane(s). Build a long range capable plane for the NAVY. If the Marines/Brits wants STOVL, then build one that is simple and can work in austere conditions. Although personally I don't buy the STOVL argument. For the Air force(s) build a cheaper variant based on the F-22.
DeleteNuke, that 'no room for growth' is hogwash. The Air Farce has not been even thinking to update F-16's or F-15's because they have stealth on the brain. They are jonesing for F-22s and F-35s, so there haven't been any efforts devoted to new updates for those platforms.
DeleteI remember reading back in AvWeek back in the 90's when they were talking about whether older aircraft like the F-15 could be given new engines variants similar to those on the F-22. It would take some new shoehorning and some re-design, but it might have worked. New radars, new frames. Heck, even the F-16XL had a delta wing prototype wing built could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 with a 40% boost in range as well.
You could throw all sorts of upgrades onto the F-15. You could redesign the wing to what was proposed for the "F-15U", use the canted tails from the F-15SE, new engines, radar, etc. Yet in the end you've rebuilt the aircraft into something that still doesn't have the potential and performance the F-22 does or could have in the air-superiority mission.
DeleteYou could certainly get more out of the F-16 with a significant redesign in the manner of the F-16XL, F-16AT "Falcon 21", or some of the similar concepts studied over the years. Yet you'd have to revamp the entire F-16 production line so it wouldn't be an "easy and fast" process.
Such an improved F-16 would have been great to have a decade ago to bridge the gap until our next generation of fighters entered service, but 20/20 hindsight is of little use. Due to the single vertical tail and engine intake configuration there isn't much room for further radar cross section reduction either. Considering all of the work involved and the competition from Russia and China, you'd be better off just designing a whole new fighter.
Solomon I can't explain how the hell management prior to Bogdan botched up so much of the program. Nor can I explain why the government has been so soft on Lockheed despite talk of accountability, etc. The JSF program has a planned production run in the thousands, the latest manufacturing techniques and expertise available, and a lot of smart and competent people involved (despite the incompetent idiots also involved). The tools to lower costs and make it affordable are there. If we all fail to take advantage of that and make it happen, it is simply inexcusable. At the same time we need to be realistic, the Super Hornet should be the benchmark for costs, not the far lighter and simpler F-16.
Americans will also die if we end up going to war with outdated aircraft. At the core of the F-35 there is still a solid design for a STOVL and a CTOL strike fighter to meet the needs of the USAF, USMC, and many other nations. Starting with a clean sheet of paper sets us back a long time and wastes a lot of work already done. We need to make it work. I don't care if the government has to fire every upper Lockheed manager, leave the company coffers empty, and give a large portion of the work (and profits) over to competitors like Boeing and Northrop. If need be redesign a great portion of the aircraft and write off those already built. This needs to work.
Horseshit. It's the same clap trap, fearmongering of "if we aren't fielding goldplated gadgets, we're toast". Nobody, especially our enemies, is going to be flying all stealth fleets. So why do we insist we must when we obviously can't afford them?
DeleteIn spite of the T-50, J31, J20 developments, Russia and China (and their clients) will be fielding thousands of new-build J10s and Sukhois Su-30 variants for decades. And to think we need an F-22 or F35 to take on those non-stealth planes is hogwash. Updated, new build F-16s, F-15SEs and Advanced Super Hornets, complemented by a new build F22C AND stealth UCAVs for bomb trucks would be more than a match.
There are four things F35 refuse to acknowledge aside from the per unit upfront cost:
1. cost per hour for F35 and readiness rates are shit and if the F22 is the canary in the coal mine, they always will be shit. We can't afford to fly it.
2. The F35 is overweight, underpowered and under-ranged. It falls far short of the original requirements and the program has simply lowered requirements for the F35 rather than expect it to meet the requirements. And then it fails the LOWERED requirements!
3. A) It is a shitty fighter: fat, slow and unmaneuverable. Proponents keep harping how dogfighting is passe', missiles are maneuverable, you won't need to outmaneuver opponents because you can give them the Evil Eye with the new helmet and lock-on. If that is the case, why even bother to have fighters? Why not UCAVs?
B) it is a shitty bomber: poor range and small payload (if it wishes to remain stealthy with internal ordnance) and if stealth UCAVs are the future, why bother even having manned fighters delivering ordnance? By UCAVs and stealth cruise missiles instead.
4.) Considering the Pentagon and LM have conceded the Chinese compromised the contractor's data security, how much info will potential enemies have on materials, capabilities that they can design countermeasures? What if they got a glimpse into the coatings for the F-22 and F-35? What if they are bouncing different bands of radiation to build new radars specifically for our planes?
This idea that we blindly continue to purchase an underperforming, potentially compromised, overpriced turd because 'it's too late to consider alternatives' or 'we have to be better than our foes' is just sounding more and more like a cult.
Such insight... this is shit, that is shit, etc. If you aren't willing to discuss actual numbers vs "the F-35 is shit" there isn't much to discuss Paralus.
DeleteThe upgraded Su-35BM and MiG-35 will be very close in capabilities to upgraded F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s. We need superiority against such a threat, not parity. We're not just dealing with enemy fighters here either. You have all sorts of new SAMs and air defense systems on the ground to worry about.
Even if we restarted production of an improved F-22 we would still need something to complement it, something similar in concept to the F-35A.
Specifications have been lowered on two occasions. One being a KPP adjustment to the takeoff distance for a loaded F-35B. The other is the infamous G-spec and acceleration changes which I could discuss for a very long time although I've probably already done so in the past. It is true that the initial objective goals (not requirements) won't be met in some areas. I don't intend to offer excuses for Lockheed, however historically this is a common occurrence among ambitious fighter programs. The F-15 never truly met goals for speed and likely some other categories as well. Several planned features like a new 25mm cannon and the long range AIM-97 missile were cut. The original F/A-18 fell far short of goals for range and payload. The F-22 also missed some of the original very demanding ATF goals. There are many more examples than just these.
The media indeed tore into all of those programs and deemed them failures. They have been doing this for decades now. They did it with the M1 Abrams, M2/M3 Bradley, Spruance class destroyers and countless other projects. While there are indeed legitimate problems and concerns with the F-35, you also have to recognize some things are blown out of proportion by the media.
Sol, most alternatives have been killed off to pay for the 'magical' F35. this includes proposed re designs of current operational platforms and now retired air frames. It started with the F14 retirement (I believe) and canning of the F16 XL, when the 'one platform' theory came to task. And its politics I am afraid - who's in power brings their friends to the trough for a feed. The US gov. has to take responsibility for this in greater part - that is the one platform Multi Role "all in one" BS - LM (I am not protecting them) basically said yea we will make it.......and thus the rest is the X32 vs X35 process. Which is amusing to read given what we are looking at today in the F 35 (Originally the CALF program - Later the JSF).
ReplyDeleteTo add - i don't think there is any real new developments going on as contractors are shite scared of the US not funding anything past the pencil on paper.
The F-14 was set to be retired and before plans for the JSF had been clearly established. The F-16XL was canned back in the '80s when it lost out to the F-15E.
DeleteI would just add that with a PART of the F35 BUDGET, you could have bought 20000 RAFALES !!!
ReplyDeleteNO ENEMY OF USA has 20000 SAM capable of firing on RAFALE ( means SAM > S300 PMU1 at least because it was recently jammed by SPECTRA)
How many Gripens could it have bought? Modular, international, designed to be maintained from austere conditions. Then again, how many F-15SE's would it have bought? The F-15 is a helluva workhorse.
ReplyDeleteDrones are the future of air combat in support of ground troops, and if the conflicts of the past fifty years have been any indicator of future tactics, we'll destroy the enemy air force while it is still on the ground instead of in an air to air conflict. Fighting system for system is the stupidest way to fight, so building an all stealth Air Force so that it can maintain system to system parity is stupid. Fight missil on tank, tank on infantry, fighter on helicopter, cruise missile on enemy airfield....
I think the Air Force vision for the F-35 "Albino Elephant" is built out of wishful thinking not constrained by budget realities.
Classic Grippen cost is something around 70 millions, F-35 is 153. Program cost of Grippen was 13.54 billion and for F-35 857 billion. The cost of F-35 go up every minute... the cost of Grippen go down and now they put on roll the new Grippen NG.
DeleteYou can wonder what they could build if they give them not 14 bilion but almost 900 ?
Flyaway costs don't work that way Shas.
DeleteGrippen has nothing more than last Sukhoi in contrary of rafale, but same conclusion : 40000 grippen you gonna lack of bomb to hang on his wings !!!
ReplyDeleteIt's weird we are making the mismake of the nazis... technology can't outperform numbers when it comes more than 1 to 2...
The cost to procure the F-35 just went UP 1.9%, Bloomberg is reporting...
ReplyDelete