F-35 boss: We’ll fix the jet — just let us do it

F-35 boss: We’ll fix the jet — just let us do it

F-35 Lightning II program boss Vice Adm. David Venlet is bullish about the prospects for his super-jet, but he argues that he needs time and space to get all the kinks worked out.

Venlet told a defense conference last week that he can fix all those things you’ve heard about that are wrong with the different flavors of the F-35 — and some you may not have heard about — but he must be permitted to get on with it. More delays, restructuring or other changes would just gum up the works. His remarks were quoted in a note circulated Monday by the sponsors of the conference, Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese.

Venlet said the F-35 flight test program is running as fast as it can, and of course it’s going to find problems — that’s the point. “These are normal teething problems that you always fight in fighter aircraft development,” he said, per Credit Suisse’s note. “This simply requires good old-fashioned systems engineering, to fix problems as we find them.”


The jet’s “software issues,” which Secretary Panetta has told Congress are his biggest worry? They’re working on them, Venlet said — “We are productionizing software literally as we are still testing it.”

The infamous helmet? That’s being “addressed,” Venlet said; program officials think the “alternate goggles-based system” will work for now as a backup, and Venlet promised he would keep on the helmet situation until he thought it was squared away. F-35 pilots were supposed to get the world’s most wham-o-dyne cockpit setup, including a helmet that displayed live video and sensor information, but engineers haven’t yet been able to make it work exactly to spec.

The F-35C’s tail hook? That’s “a damping/bouncing issue that we could not have found before, and have fixes for now,” Venlet said.

The F-35B’s fuel dump issue? That’s “just a matter of systems engineering to re-route fuel venting.”

The F-35B’s “propulsion reliability of inlet/exhaust doors is understood, and being fixed.”

So it’s just a matter of doing the work, Venlet said. According to the Credit Suisse report, he also is confident that the international members of Club F-35 will stay in, despite their sometime grumbling — with Japan as the latest example. DoD’s decision to delay 179 fighters in its most recent future years plan will give program officials the time they need to get these jets into good shape, and when that happens, the foreign customers will once again be eager for their orders.

Of course, there’s a lot that can go wrong between now and the future. Even Venlet acknowledged “We’re not where I want us to be yet” on many key points in the program, and he and other officials also conceded that even if everything goes well, a lot of this is out of their hands. The F-35 has powerful enemies and you could make a case that it’s the victim of a perception gap — borderline or non-defense mainstream audiences only hear about it when it has more problems, which reinforces the perception that it’s just a boondoggle. But perceptions are significant, especially when there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.

“DoD is clearly concerned that another major performance gaffe could cause Congress to truncate the F-35 program in favor of ‘alternatives,’” the Credit Suisse analysts wrote.

 

Join the Conversation

Unfortunately for him Admiral Venlet’s job is program manager, not chief engineer, so he doesn’t get to choose to limit his job description. Perhaps if everyone got educated or re-educated on Acquisition 101 we might be able to figure out what to do with this mess, versus basing our discussion on non-truth. In defense acquisition, you have to design a program’s cost and schedule baseline at Milestone B. It’s only fair that the people who are paying for the program be aware of how much they will pay and when they will get their $‘s worth, right? Now if the program breaks the baseline, you have to rebaseline the program. You really oughtn’t press forward without a baseline unless you think it’s logical to drive without a map & your headlights on. The F-35 Selected Acquisition Report of Dec 2010 was the last time we had anything close to a plan. Rebaselining the program and telling the truth to the taxpayer should be the Admiral’s priority. Anyone who thinks this is anywhere close to a sane way of doing business is either dangerously ignorant or corrupt.

RE:” The F-35 has powerful enemies and you could make a case that it’s the victim of a perception gap — borderline or non-defense mainstream audiences only hear about it when it has more problems, which reinforces the perception that it’s just a boondoggle.”

Is that chest-thumping or an apology? ;-)

Dang, I had to wait for lunchtime to post so the Cost Accounting Kid got ‘firsts’

the F-35 will be toast against the J-20.
We need a larger F-22.

Your inability to engage on a substantive basis and to resort to childish namecalling is noted. I would like a refund on all the Professional Military Education invested in you. It obviously didn’t take.

Im confident they will fix it its logical. BUT at the cost of millions which the DoD doesn’t have.

In 25 years, when reports and correspondence are declassified, we will see just how inadequate this aircraft is to the tasks it is being asked to do against the threats that were in existence when it was designed and the threats as they have evolved to what we face today. Vice Adm. Venlet and his predessesors, selected members of congress and the executive branch, and LM are well aware of these issues. To move forward, spouting such pallatives, is simply criminal. I just hope that this aircraft does not see combat until these issues are addressed. I wish Jack Anderson and Barry Goldwater were around today.

This failure of an aircraft is not worth its price and it’s still possible that it could go through the Death Spiral process and end up gone. It’s not the only option we have since the Super Hornet International Road Map can perform just as good as the F-35 with a slight reduction in stealth.

On top of that the Super Hornets are extremely cheap to make and are in too many ways better than the F-35. It’s also cheaper to operate, maintain, is far more reliable, and is ready right now at time when our economy is not at its best.

Fav quoet from article: “You don’t want to pick up Stephen’s math and run with it, because if you do, you’ll realize the Navy could replace every Hornet in inventory with a Block II, add an extra squadron of Block IIs to all 11 carrier air wings, add an 11th Carrier Air Wing, and still save money by sticking with Super Hornets and choosing not to buy the Joint Strike Fighter.”

I think it’s possible to get the F-35A to work and we should focus on the A-model, but the B and C should be cancelled.

Well Admiral Venlet, can’t just wish away the problem of paper-thin weight margins. Then there is his true statement from last year that the “business plan” the program was based on is unworkable.

If the STOVL requirement was never part of the picture, this program would be done by now and moderately successful.

Truly, if Congress had known back in early 2009 that today’s briefing from Program bosses would entail pleading of all parties to simply ‘just let us fix these problems’ as such… and if Congress new back then how much in FY13 actual unit costs would be and new about the capability gaps due to the delays et al, it’s almost certain that Congress would have pulled the plug on the Program back in FY10.

The easiest way to fix the JSF is to start again. Take the money from Lockheed and it to a company that makes aircraft not excuses.

It’s not just that they redesign the same sub-systems over and over again and they are still broken, it’s not just that the JSF program has never met a production, cost or quality target year after year, it’s that the F-35 is a broken design. The aircraft is a dog. It is double disadvantaged against every fighter aircraft of the last 40 years.

The JSF program is just poking shiit with a stick and claiming they are making cupcakes.

The P-51 is even cheaper, and it has a PROVEN record of combat service, unlike either the F-22 OR the F-35. Obviously anything more expensive and complicated than a P-51 is a useless waste of money.

The Super Hornet is both cheaper and better. That you have to compare the F-35 to an aircraft from 60 to years ago to make it look good is telling.

The F-35 is a “victim of a perception gap — borderline or non-defense mainstream audiences only hear about it when it has more problems, which reinforces the perception that it’s just a boondoggle.”

It’s a complicated machine that’s supposed to do everything under the sun so of course more can, and will, go wrong!

I’ll reserve judgement on the F-35 until after it enters service.

Itfunk.…
Never mind.

Quiz time. Who was this General? (submitted for your entertainment)

“Under General —’s leadership…the projected cost of the —- program
increased by several tens of billions of dollars. General — is
commended for the exemplary denial with which he approached the
increasing non-executability of the program, and for the zeal with
which he attacked those inside and outside the Pentagon who correctly
predicted that the official schedule was hopelessly optimistic.

Meanwhile, General — further disrupted the program by focusing on
the PR strategy of achieving first flight dates, regardless of whether thejets were ready for sustained testing. Under his command, the program achieved timely delivery of numerous tests assets which required majorwork before they were actually any use.

General — further showed his leadership qualities by bugging out,
mere months before the shit hit the fan, and leaving his deputy and
successor to be, inevitably, fired and publicly disgraced.

Given this record, there is no reason to believe that Gen. — will not
continue to advance in rank and, on retirement, proceed to a senior post at one or other of our leading defense contractors, as so many of hisfellow general officers have done before him.”

Heh. Lighten up little one. Just a way to close a post and give a passing ‘hi’ to a ‘voice’ I recognized.
But since you engaged, what is your over/under on the timing of a new and ‘formal’ Milestone B? Before December?

(1) I vote on whoever was the general in charge of the M-1 Abrams tank.

(2) The question is why Venlet gets a pass and Dave Heinz didn’t. This is a complex problem and as long as no one at Lockheed gets fired (meaning their long time program manager), the government is going to continue to get taken to the cleaners. Lockheed should NOT be paid a dollar of profit UNTIL the aircraft works as advertised.

The F-35 has powerful enemies? It is a victim of unfair public relations? YGBSM? Mr. Ewing cannot be allowed to get away with that? Bruthas and Sistas, I tell you today there are untold victims out there that are more worthy of life than the JSF, but listen.…can you hear it?…that giant sucking sound of every dollar that can be begged, borrowed or stolen going to a bone fide boondoggle. Can I get an Amen?

It seems that the LRIP-5 prices are now over $200M per unit. Not including all the additional millions it will cost to fix them up so that they’re good for something other than fancy gate guardians…
http://​www​.defense​-aerospace​.com/​c​g​i​-​b​i​n​/​c​l​i​e​n​t/m

Well uh, should we have reserved judgment on the F-111B, A-12 and RAH-66 until after they entered service? If you reserve judgment because you don’t have enough information that’s fine, but somebody somewhere needs to know whether or not it’s worth going forward with a program.

I wonder what rabbit Venlet will pull from his magical hat to fix the $291.7M (Which doesn’t include the tens of millions that will be needed later to make them actually work…) price tag of the F-35B?

My guess is that there is no such magical wabbit available, and that’s why Venlet & Co are plaintively wailing to be left alone. Alone with the keys to the treasury, that is…

While the F-35 might have its benefits the problem is the program is a chaotic mess. The terms “give us a chance” and “we will fix it” shows zero leadership and zero confidence. Instead it shows how bungled this whole program is. To much time, energy, and money has been spent it is time to let someone else take leadership and a different contractor take over the controls. Perhaps a FB-22 built not by Lockheed but by Northrop Grumman, Boeing, or anyone else except LMCO. The utter chaos of the F-35 is embarrassing and is a good example to be used in educating the future leaders of what not to do.

Dear God, I didn’t know it was that high!

Superraptor. The f-35 could out turn a j-20 any day the j-20 having big and bulky engines which allow it to supercruise decrease the manuevreabilty of the plane severly. And from our best guesses and the look of the design the j-20 is not an air to air combat fighter

So what do you do when the cost & schedule projections used to claim the baseline break prove to be made up BS and those that made them admit they were wrong & that if fact the ACTUAL cost & schedule had not changed since 2008?

Quite the opposite. We will see when IOC is declared that the aircraft meets or exceeds its requirements which were developed to ensure an overmatch of the tasks it will be asked to do against the evolving threats of the future.

You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

He isn’t wishing away anything! As for your ‘paper-thin weight margins’, ALL THREE models are BELOW their respective weight growth curves AND there are ~250lb of additional weight reductions from SWAT which could be implemented if needed.

No, the easiest way to fix it is for the government to get out of the way & let the people who know what they are doing do what they do.

The F-35 HAS met production, cost AND quality targets! The F-35 is NOT a broken design — it is a game changing design with a double ADVANTAGE against every fighter aircraft (except the F-22 of course) for the next 20 years).

They cut the number of aircraft from 42 to 30 & you act surprised when the unit costs go up…

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Once the design is stabilized costs get brought down. This is true for any virtually any program or product. From a materials perspective there is nothing horribly exotic or expensive compared to any other modern fighter. But you’re dealing with low-rate production aircraft that have gone through a lot of design changes in recent months, using engines still in LRIP, and software in constant development.

Get the rest done right and the price will follow. Venlet is a big step above previous PM’s and has done a lot to correct previous mistakes. He doesn’t deserve the bad-mouthing.

Why so fixated on milestone B, little one? A whole new APB is needed. The SAR posted on FAS, which happens to be our best source of information since DoD hasn’t posted any since Dec 2010 has TBD’s for all dates past IOC. So you’re wrong again I am not a humorless prig, I can get that F-35 is a f* joke!

dear oh dear what do I do? I would tell you that you do not know what you are talking about. See below my response to Mac. F-35 and DoD have left us completely in the dark with regards to F-35 status. Please provide the reference to the CAPE “admitting they were wrong”. In the testimony I saw, the CAPE director admitted they were wrong — in underestimating software development schedule and cost.

Another benefit provided by F-35! We needed a model for failed programs since we didn’t have one already (sarcasm)!

pfcem — The F-35 HAS NOT met production, neither the cost AND quality targets! The F-35 is a broken design — it is NOT a game changing design with a double ADVANTAGE against every fighter aircraft. __The aircraft is a lemon and a joke. Hence, why should any attendees deserve to fully support and continuing the development of the failed JSF program that will never fulfil its mission requirements???

The failed JSF project is never of a need of a confidence vote. NEVER. I’d kill the turkey if I was making an announcement for defence acquisitions.

@ USMC

“The world’s best air forces choose the world’s biggest failed project, inferior to the Sukhoi family of fighters, J-20 Mighty Dragon and advanced SAM systems which is not lethal and not survivable, extremely expensive to fly and maintain.”

It is very fortunate that there are so many representations and sortions of facts presented with the opinions offered by Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey, Air Power Australia, retired fighter pilots, retired officers, aircraft engineers and designers etc.

@ USMC

The simple facts are as follows:
–– The F-35 will never be the most lethal and survivable multirole fighter in history;
–– The F-35 is not meeting or not exceeding every single one of the Key Performance Parameters that the services have mandated;
–– The F-35’s capabilities are not being validated in their laboratories, and in on ground– and flight-test programme today;
–– The F-35’s procurement costs are not up to date and not meeting programme cost objectives, and certainly are not on track to meet the customers’ unit flyaway cost targets; and
–– The F-35 programme is behind schedule to deliver the first production-model aircraft (from 2010).

@ USMC

I’m not very pleased to see that many of the world’s most elite air forces – including the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marine Corps, Canadian Air Force, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, Royal Australian Air Force and other NATO air forces – do not agree with the opinions and facts from Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon and pro-JSF advocates that recent endorsements of the F-35 programme both in the US and abroad underscore these convictions.

@ USMC

I’m not the most proud of the fact that the F-35 is the system of choice for all participating nations to protect the freedoms that enable those with differing opinions to speak out.

I’m not confident that the JSF will achieve all its design goals. The F-35 will never prove herself to be the world’s deadliest combat aircraft. You should ask yourself why are so many nations have ordered or remain committed to the F-35 that is unaffordable, behind schedule, cost overruns, obsolete and never be able to fulfil its mission requirements???

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

The J-20 Mighty Dragon could out turn the turkey F-35 any day.The J-20 having big engines which allows the aircraft to supercruise which increase the extreme manoeuvrability of the plane severly. The look of the design the J-20 is an air-to-air combat fighter not the bloody JSF.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

The F-35 and the small fighters with short range will be toast against the Sukhoi family of fighters and J-20.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

So why does the Pentagon say the JSF is a true 5th Generation Fighter. Really?

Here are the major problems with the JSF which are:

Cost of the program. $385 billion for development and production, and about $ 1 trillion or more to maintain and operate F-35 aircraft over decades.

Range. The short range of the JSF means they would have to be refuelled several times to fly across Australia, America or anywhere.

Single-Engine. This makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure which is totally ill-suited for overwater operations. Remember this makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure that will cause heavy losses to the entire fleet and putting pilots lives in jeopardy. The Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 turbofan engine will cause damage to flight deck and runways with heat build-up and exhaust impedes the aircraft’s ability to conduct missions in hot environments. The F-35 engine and integrated power package exhaust may cause excessive damage to the flight deck environment and runway surfaces that may result in operating limits or drive costly upgrades and repairs of JSF basing options.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

Thinned Skinned fuselage: Again, Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety pre-cautions on the Joint Strike Fighter to protect against fire. As an close air support which the F-35 is suppose to be (when it attempts to discriminate tanks, convoys, surface-to-air missiles and anti aircraft artillery) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it’s a very delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the fuselage and engine. Very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”. Its a very vulnerable aircraft.

Speed. The top speed of the JSF is only Mach 1.6 placing it at a significant disadvantage to Mach 2.4 aircraft such as the super cruising Sukhoi. Wing and engine intake geometry is optimised for sub-sonic flight — so a more powerful engine cannot fix the problem even if one would fit in the small JSF airframe.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

Super Cruise: No (-1)

Thrust Vectoring Control – TVC: No (-1)

High Agility Supersonic / Subsonic: Neither (-1)

Large Thrust to Weight Multi Engine Thrust Growth: Middling T/W One Engine Little Growth (-1)

High Combat Ceiling (> 7 deg/sec turn rate, sustained): No < 45 ft (-1)

Large Internal Fuel Load (lbs): Yes >18 lbs (for the F-35A model — 0) and 19 lbs (for the F-35C model — 0)which is very inefficient.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

APG-81 AESA radar. The nose geometry of the JSF limits the aperture of the radar. This makes the JSF dependent on supporting AEW&C aircraft which are themselves vulnerable to long range anti-radiation missiles and jamming. Opposing Sukhoi aircraft have a massive 1 meter radar aperture enabling them to detect and attack at an JSF long before the JSF can detect the Sukhoi. It has Medium Power Aperture (0) (Detection range approx 140 – 150 nm at BVR)

“Partial Stealth”. It is argued that these disadvantages are offset by the JSF being “partially stealthy” in that it has low frontal visibility to millimetre-band radar. However, this is of little value against VHF radar using meter-long wavelengths. Russian engineers are now producing advanced VHF radar systems for the Sukhoi and for ground-based system such as Nebo SVU. This exposes most fighter-sized ‘stealth’ aircraft. While the radar technology will only improve, the stealth characteristics of the JSF are locked-in with its flawed geometry.

Unavailability. The JSF is not expected to be fully operational around 2018 or later.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

Weight. The JSF seems to have a serious weight problem and may be unable to take off with a full load of fuel and weapons making it even more dependent on air-tanker support.

Only “Four” BVR Air-to-Air Missiles. The JSF can only carry four air-air missiles (AAM) for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. For e.g. by contrast late model Sukhoi Flankers can carry a wide range of AAM on twelve hard-points.

Classified Components. The JSF is likely to have a range of components that are ‘off-limits’ to any nation and can only be serviced in the US.

Highly Integrated Avionics: Yes (0)

Sidelooking ESA Apertures: No (-1)

High Specific Excess Power – Ps: No (-1)

High Situational Awareness (SA) — Onboard / Offboard: Yes (0)

This is certaintly the biggest failed project of all time I’ve ever seen and must be scrapped.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

The F-35 is way too heavy, overweight and sluggish to be successful as an air superiority fighter, with the fuselage that has too much cross section, you’re easily detected.

I’m going to ask you a question. How can the F-35 out turn the Sukhoi Flanker, PAK-FA and J-20 any day? With the tiny wings, LOL the wing planform on the aircraft is optimised for subsonic cruise and transonic manoeuvres, you’re flying straight level that can’t turn inside the adversaries flight envelope. It also doesn’t provide enough lift and drag to defeat Beyond Visual Range (BVR), Within Visual Range (WVR) air-to-air missiles (AAMs) and advanced surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) you’ll be a “dead duck”.

The JSF will expose more heat (in full afterburner, like an exploding volcano) this will make the adversaries to detect the F-35 at BVR range, using medium range heat seeking missiles.

Its a Joint Strike **** Up or Joint Strike Failure, certainly not a fighter, it’s a dead duck aeroplane.

Can’t you take the copy and paste nonsense elsewhere. I stop reading when you said the usual “IT WILL EXPLODE IF SHOT AT BY A .22!”

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

Just to let you guys know the JSF is a “FAKE” aircraft, not a real pilots aeroplane.

@ USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

I reckon the turkey JSF have big and bulky engine. Thats discriminating, big fighters (with high capability) have large engines too, so don’t attempt to say big fighters can’t out manoeuvre, because they can. They have a very potent firepower, more powerful fire control radar and sensors to detect the adversaries at extreme long range, carry more weapons load and have extreme longer range than small fighters.

William C.

Your facts are absolutely laughable claiming the JSF is a correct aircraft.

You will stop reading when I said the IT WILL EXPLODE IF SHOT AT BY A .22 or any form of gun fire. Absolutely nothing wrong copying and pasting information. I reckon there’s something wrong with your nonsense facts, so why don’t you take your opinions somewhere else pal.

William C.

If you don’t like it, go away and complain your opinions elsewhere.

Brad, fair argument and your opening statement was spot on… but in truth it could be argued that LMCO is actually capable of being a decent contractor in the aviation manufacturing sphere. Look at their management of the current F-16 Program for example; which is an international joint-consortium Program and still producing cost-effective modernized fighters.

It’s not so much that they can’t manage or build a working and affordable aircraft, it’s rather that the inherent F-35 design and business model was fundamentally flawed and unsustainable from inception.

I do agree with your recommendation however, that an alternate aircraft(s) to the flawed F-35 be selected as part of recapitalization plans and that one such alternative as part of the mix, such as an FB-22 type concept could be jointly-designed and manufactured (eg a joint Boeing-LMCO project).

“Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies:-)”. F-35 is a disaster, inadequate owerweight draggy design that won´t be able to stand against its peers when becoming operational. There is no way of restructuring it, as it is fundamentally flawed. And nobody is trying to do to, this is all just cover up, and will keep moving on and on. Until we see Robert Gates and other great supporters of F-35, plus bunch of LM managers being prosecuted, nothing will change. F-35 is money-laundering scheme, that is all. Simple as that.

I actually disagree with this prevailing perspective today in bashing LockMart.

Note that it’s the inherent flaws of the organic JSF requirement and business plan in the first place, a Program selected by Government deciders and policy makers which is to blame, not so much LM not being able to effectively build the darn F-35 at an affordable cost, on schedule.

If anything, one could even fathom as far as LM making the assessment one day that the F-35 Program is an unacceptable liability to the company and that it will be unable to proceed with future contracts in manufacturing and delivering this model at a loss.

I just don’t think USG has that much of a legit hand in this matter therefore, as it’s arguably the actual policy making to include such unsustainable Programs which is to blame, not so much the manufacturer of said unsustainable Programs.

I agree. I am pretty sure Admiral Venlet had to take the same class at DAU as ALL us SE’s did.
In order to become a PM. It was called the SYS 300 series. He should understand the DoD DAG ch4 and the SE process model. We measure success on events, not time. Don’t give him an out for this effort. There are NO excuses for him or this program.

I don’t think you can cite the F-16 as evidence that LM is capable of being a decent contractor. General Dynamics developed the F-16 based on a realistic concept & acquisition strategy that was the brainchild of Col Boyd.

Wow, Lockheed Martin does exactly what you pay them a profit incentive to do, and then you people complain. If you don’t want them to f you, why do you pay them more to do just that? If you want results, pay for results. Instead, you pay for process. The more they spend on development, the more profit they make. If their plane is a piece of crap, you pay them $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend to fix it, and then you whine that it takes too long and costs too much. Well, what the hell people, if you didn’t want it to take so long and cost so much, why do you pay them less if they provide a kick ass airplane on time and on budget? I mean, really, how stupid are you people, anyway?

F35 should have been on the disassemble line for the bone yard, because they ARE NOT worst the money​.By the time the aircraft come out it will be over 10 year old. You figure congress would learn from the Harrier, which was called the widow maker. What ever happen to a great aircraft that Boeing builds, which is the Super Hornet. The Navy was smart in getting the Super Hornet. You have the people that support the aircraft in place already. Plus you have Technical Support from the Tech Reps. The F35 is a dying aircraft and its not even out yet.

I sure would like to know the background on several people that spout off in this forum. It is very evident that some of these so called “experts” are just that, just not at understanding the acquistion process. When I need a good laugh, this is the place to come. Amazing.….…..

leave it to nortie and all his half wit partners to muddle this all up

From the 2010 GAO report “Assessment of Major Weapons Programs”, page 84:
“An updated independent cost estimate, completed in October 2009, reported that significantly more time and money would be needed to complete system development. Current contractor engineer staff levels are higher than predicted by the program office and the independent cost team last year. Manufacturing inefficiencies have seen little improvement and the late delivery of flight test aircraft continues. In addition, while the JSF program is producing software at higher rates than past programs, the overall software effort is behind schedule and some of the program’s most challenging software integration efforts are yet to come.”

What are you going to prosecute them for, stupidity? You pay them extra for stupidity, but you want it to be a crime at the same time? Good luck with that. Why don’t you try paying them more if they provide a good, working weapon on-time and on-budget instead of paying them less, and see if that doesn’t help the situation. What the hell, capitalism might just work. It’s a very quaint notion these days, I know.

You pay them more to drag out a program and to have problem after problem than you do if they build a good airplane on time and on budget, then you decide the problem is Lockheed Martin? I’m thinking maybe you should look in the mirror if you want to see where the problem lay.

Sorry, you already signed up to a contract that says you’ll pay them $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on developing that jet. If you wanted a good airplane built on time and on budget, maybe you should have signed up to a different contract, like one that rewarded results instead of process.

Dude, if Lockheed is scamming the DoD and only getting ten cents on every dollar then they’re doing it wrong. That won’t even pay to keep the lights on.

“If you wanted a good airplane built on time and on budget, maybe you should have signed up to a different contract, like one that rewarded results instead of process.”

Yes, and then you get what you pay for, which might not be what you need (or even be something that actually works). Capability has a cost. If you want that capability you pay that cost. If you pay less, then you don’t get that capability. There is no magic competition bean we can plant that will get us the Starship Enterprise for free.

They cut the number because LM is failing to deliver, and I’m not at all surprised, given that they so far have a perfect record of failing to deliver on their promises.

That’s merely an expression of faith, William. Not a sound argument that reflects the history of this program.

Anyone who believes that the seriously flaw-riddled F-35B will ever be delivered in a combat-ready form for less than $200M needs to take their LockMart-issue rose-colored glasses off. The propulsion system alone is currently over $100M, and it doesn’t even work right. After more than a decade of development!

You can always tell they got nothin’ when they start draggin’ out their raggedyash strawmen…

Sorry, you are incorrect.
I have seen such reports.

BTW, the acquisition definition is that IOC is attained “when some units and/or organizations in the force structure scheduled to receive a system 1) have received it and 2) have the ability to employ and maintain it. The specifics for any particular system IOC are defined in that system’s Capability Development Document (CDD) and Capability Production Document (CPD)”

In the case of the JSF, IOC for USAF will be attained when the MAJCOM/CC determines the unit is operationally war ready. This normally occurs when the unit has achieved a stable overall C-1 level and reports same via Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS).

As more and more F-35s are being produced, the more desperate the con-crowd gets. They began to spam the sites with false and misleading information, particularly how well the J-20 can out turn the F-35… LOL…

With so much at stakes, the proliferation of the F-35s is making both China and Russia nervous. Despite all the advertisements and faked data of their “super jets” planned “prowess”, neither the J-20 nor the T-50 are at the level of development as the F-35. By the end of the year, the U.S. will have doubled their current number of all 3 versions of F-35. Mean while, Russia and China will continue to rely on the anti-F-35 crowd to do their service of falsely inflating the capabilities of their 4+ generation fighters pretending to be 5th.

C-1. The unit possesses the required resources and is trained to undertake the full wartime
mission(s) for which it is organized or designed. The resource and training area status will neither
limit flexibility and methods for mission accomplishment nor increase vulnerability of unit personnel
and equipment. The unit does not require any compensation for any deficiencies.

An initial capability document (ICD) for a next generation fighter (“F-X”) is in the works that wil address the “shortfalls” in the F-22 and F-35.

Except most of what you’ve posted is pure BS. The fuselage is no more “thin skinned” than any other modern fighter like the F-16 or F/A-18. The APG-81 is the same size as the APG-79 and CAPTOR-E radars. To put it simply the Flanker series will not detect the F-35 first, especially considering the radar cross section of the F-35. The J-20 is either an interceptor or a strike aircraft and won’t be turning like a F-16 or Su-27. Shall I go on?

The F-35 is a victim of the reality gap — the difference between what Lockheed salesmen say the F-35 may be able to do one day, given several more tens of billions of dollars, and a few decades to do the redesigns and rework, and the reality of the piece of trash sitting on the tarmac.

Just another contractor telling us that capitalism doesn’t work.

Simply nonsense — the F-35 has a higher wing loading and lower thrust to weight ration that the J-20 a situation that is known as double disadvantaged should they ever meet. The recommended tactic for double disadvantaged aircraft is to run from the fight — in the J-35 with poor rear aspect stealth that is suicide. The typical JSF pilot is best advised to simply eject.

Of course the same situation applies not only for the J-20 (which btw has comparable wing loading to the F-22). The F-35 is so bad aerodynamically that turns like a 60s era F-104 starfighter. Every fighter acraft developed since has better performance. The kill zone for a F-35 is huge because it can’t out-manouver the last 4 generations of air to air missiles.

There was no way such a poor design could have been done by mistake — it was a deliberate fraud from a company who’s name is a byword for defense industry fraud.

millions ? they get that every quarter just to tinker with the broken generator. The F-35 requires a few hundred billions to make it usable.

They cut from 42 to 30 because they no longer think they could afford 42 this year. Wonder where they got that impression from?

Of course William Crook fails to mention that the battle damage suppression system was greatly reduced to save weight. Funny that he should forget since at the time he was claiming that Lockheed should receive a bonus for reducing weight at the expense of survivability.

Such forgetfulness is common amongst defense contractor shills. Witness the glorious PR of the F-35 going supersonic. Of course they failed to mention that the “magic” skin peeled and blistered as a result and no F-35 has been allowed to go supersonic since.

In RANDs clubbing baby seals report was the following chart
http://​i36​.tinypic​.com/​1​0​p​3​h​3​c​.​jpg

Using Lockheed sown data to show what a dog the F-35 really is.

New F-35 LRIP 5 Contract: Unit Costs Tops $200 Million.
F-35 A Cost: $172 Million
F-35B Cost: $291.7 Million
F-35C Cost $ 235.8 Million

Average Cost: $209.6 Million

F-22A $120 — 140 Million and it actually Flies!!!

Very true, TMB. And of course, the F-35 Program from inception is the anti-thesis of capitalism working to build a cost-effective fighter and the anti-thesis of a prudent fighter recapitalization Program for that matter.

To complain about the manufacturer ripping of the DoD is thus completely irrelevant and distraction to the issue at hand, ie Govt insisting on staying the course on an inherently flawed and unsustainable Program.

Link to Above Data http://​www​.defense​-aerospace​.com/​c​g​i​-​b​i​n​/​c​l​i​e​n​t/m

Gripen NG: $45 million est.
Rafale F4: $75 million, but dropping as Indian order and others increase production numbers.
Typhoon: $90 million and steady.

As you know Robert I’m a Gripen NG fan, lets see we could buy Up Graded Gripens NG’s ( Using $20 Million to upgrade the Avionics with the Air-to Ground stuff they are trying to put in the F-35 ) so a Gripen NG would then be around $60 Million.

3 F-35’s $627 Million
10 Gripen NG’s around $600 Million

As Stalin once said “Quantity Has a Quality Of It’s Own”

As one in the program on the government side, Lockheed keeps the main maintenance and supply in house. When support equipment costs more and delivers less than other aircraft, and keeps getting cost increases paid for then this program will keep increasing in cost per aircraft.

Different concepts, different results. The Russians always took a solid base Airframe and let their Engineers run with it. If they could come up with a good Airplane, they would build it, until a better one came along. I always recall that the Northrup F-5 always ran circles around the F.14, 16 and 18. They came out with the F-20 two engine and it did the same thing. I have always wondered why the USAF or Navy would never buy these Planes? NorthAmerican went out of the Airplane business because they could never get the B-1 to fly properly then Northrup Built the B-2 with the flying concept they developed in the 30’s. Also the Super Hornet was originally a Northrup but the contract went to McDonald Douglas to try and save them. They built the F18 Hornet but due to Design changes (all purpose fighter) the Navy found it too heavy and it had to be redesigned for them. Douglas built good Planes and Northrup too, Martin, Convair and others. Neither Lockheed nor Boeing have built good Aircraft, outside of the Boeing 747. Personally i think that the F35 should be given to Northrup and a way should be found to bring about the return of McDonald Douglas to compete with Northrup and Lockheed and Boeing should be banned from making Military Aircraft, for a long time. Also retiring Generals and Admirals should be banned from working with Defense Contractors! Randall J. Marlowe, Buenos Aires ranjackmarlowe@gmail.com

Did anyone else read nearly that entire article in Kelsey Grammer’s voice?

And, I wonder if they could make that think amphibious? ;-)

I know you’re referring to Pentagon Wars, but the last couple articles dealing with the Navy keep reminding me of his performance in Down Periscope.

2 F-35B’s: $582 million
2 F-35C’s: $470 million
9 F/A-18E/F’s: $450 million
Common Sense: Priceless

There are some things money can’t buy…

Amen many times over, And Air Power Australia has a way to make a Naval Raptor at very minimal cost increase.

If I were in charge at one of our future F-35 customers locations, I should be looking very hard at the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle. It is much faster, carries more, and has greater range. Actually if it were not for idiiocy, the DoD should be doing this.

Since the F-35 is now as expensive as the F-22 , just think of the performance increase that we could have had if we had never thought about the F-35 and just concentrated on F-22s.

Then to increase he range, just make the wings about 2 feet longer for an huge increase in fuel capacity.

The F-35 is a single engined fighter that has a top speed of Mach 1.6 in full afterburner and is subsonic without afterburner. It carries only 4 air to air missiles when going into battle with other fighters.

In 1959 the F-106, also single engined, and capable of carrying 6 air to air missiles could supercruise, the term had not yet been invented, at 920 Knots and had a top speed, which just happens to be the existing record of Mach 2.31.

The last “do everything” supposed fighter was the F-111. That one was also way over budget and eventually became successful as a bomber and in the EF-111 form as a supersonic electronic warfare plane to provide radar masking for other aircraft. It was as fast as all of the others.

How many times do we have to learn the lesson that “do everything” items generally do nothing exceptionally well?

As the F-35 is not capable of supercruise, it also is not qualified to be called 5th generation.

While that’s usually the first response to such an F-16 Program competency claim, I don’t buy it. GD developed one helluva a cost-effective medium multi-role fighter, no doubt about it. But the single point being that if LMCO is so bad at managing tactical aviation Programs, then they would have so badly screwed it up by now that there would not be nearly the successful F-16 sales and potential future sales still being witnessed today. I say give credit where credit is due. I’m saying LM can manage within acceptable parameters when the actual platform is part of a sustainable business plan. Yet, NOBODY can sustain a simply unsustainable and inherently flawed Program such as the JSF, aka F-35 as is today.

Sure, LM might be screwing it up the F-35 a little more than would Boeing or NG if they were in charge of the F-35… but it’s only a distraction to the core issue and a moot point.

Why a larger F-22? The Chinese J-20 is larger because they don’t have the ability to miniaturize as well as we can — yet. Larger means more weight and less agility. The only advantage of a larger airframe is more space for fuel, but then we have more tankers than does China. Perhaps more internal space for weapons might be an advantage.

As I understand it, the F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 a fighter bomber.

Robert, the prices you quote are probably either the Recurring Flyaway Cost, or the Total Flyaway Cost, varying on the aircraft.

The F-35 Unit costs quoted are more closely related to the PUC cost or Total Procurement Unit Cost… two completely different quotes.

I’m just clarifying that while the F-35 is completely unsustainable as an ‘affordable fighter’ going forward, it’s sometimes confusing when comparing the cost of one aircraft to another unless using similar standards.

For example… the Total Unit Flyaway Cost of an eventual NG Gripen might be in the $75m range by 2014, while an F-35’s FY15 Total UFC cost might be around $120m.

Just trying to keep it apples to apples.

Ahhhhh, but you’re not taking into consideration that 2 F-35B could take out 14 F-18E (with integrated IRST pod) before they even knew what hit them!!! ;)

Yea, he’ll fix it alright, with a few billion extra dollars to stuff in his buddies pockets.

Funny how quickly people like you forget his tours of duty in the Navy, the fact that he worked on the F/A-18, AIM-9X, and other programs, and the fact that he has actual degrees in engineering. He knows what he is doing unlike the last PM.

But don’t let a respectable service and career history get in the way of F-35 bashing.

Hmm, comparing LRIP prices of a design still in development to a stable design that has been in production for a decade now? You didn’t mention the F-35A either, which is hasn’t needed nearly as many design changes and the LRIP costs reflect that.

Your still looking at 10–11 aircraft carriers that can only carry some 90 aircraft maximum. Having 2000 Super Hornets wouldn’t change that.

The Super Hornet is a good interim design, but even with upgrades it isn’t the 1st line fighter the Navy needs.

Instead of the F-35 A for the Air Force, how about the F-16 “Desert Falcon” that we sell to the U.A.E.? Screw the policy that if we sell it to anyone else ( including ourselves ) that we have to pay the U.A.E. a surcharge. The dang thing is the only aircraft more advanced than any active inservice fighter ( minus the F-22 ) that we build and SELL to another country. It is even called the “F-35 Light” by many. Heck, put some of the functional avionics from the F-35 in it to upgrade it and perhaps a 3 Dimensional vectoring thrust nozzel…Call it a Block 70. The F-16 is proven tech, this F-35 is quickly becoming an overpriced boondoggle that makes the F-22 look like a bargain bin price deal off the shelf at Dollar General.

Of course the PRC fanboy itfunk would ignore the F-16 which didn’t go up in flames everytime it was shot at and had less fire suppression systems than the current F-35. I don’t like this change having to be made, but everybody involved in the program agreed to it.

First supersonic flight of the F-35A occurred back in 2008 BTW. The heat damage issue occurred on horizontal stabilizer after flying at Mach 1.6 for a few minutes. Considering what the F-22 (using older stealth materials) can do, this will be fixed.

I guess I just forgot that no aircraft in the past ever encountered unexpected problems in development. That’s new to the F-35 program. It’s not like the purpose of flight testing is to find and iron out the bugs or anything crazy like that…

We’ve designed a huge boondoggle and our production of it is stalled out. The Chinese are 2 yrs from going into full production of their own copy. How about we design some even larger boondoggle projects and let the Chinese waste their money on them while we stand back and watch the hilarity?

Lockheed will never fix the F-35 they simply don’t have the expertise.

Hence the repeated mergers to keep the industry going ?

This guy must work for either ‘Mother Pratt’ or ‘Locksneed’. DUMP this turkey now. The REAL war planners didn’t want a single engine fighter in the 60’s and Johnson jammed the F-16 down their throats. The political hacks got lucky. AFTER Prez Obama gets re-elected I hope he does as Carter did. Dump that turkey.

The military has a long history of boondoggles like the B-36, B1A, C-5A and C-17, The Osprey and who can forget the 25 billion dollars on each B-2 stealth subsonic aircraft that can’t fly through rain because the stealth paint washes off. Wait I forgot the fiberglas propellers installed on the C-130H that fall apart in heavy rain​.In all cases the taxpayers paid the bills to finalize the product that whould never been accepted because it wasn’t engineered 100%.. Throwing more money instead of killing a project is the way that the military does things and the contractors underbid each other because they know that the taxpayers will step in after and rescue them. The GAO needs more investigative powers to kill faulty design products and not waste taxpayers money on defective products..

hee. you bring up an image of a B-52 trying to dogfight a Tu-95.

…says the guy who posted like twenty separate comments in this thread alone…?

That six tons of bombs is gonna make a nice big hole 200 miles from anything useful. I’d rather have just one bomb exactly where it needs to be.

one NFL running back: $6 million a year
sixty thousand high-school football: $100 a year

ergo high school football players are preferable to professional NFL players.

They do, but it seems that they are busy at more important projects.

It’s true that neither the russian nor the chinease have the capability to make a plane a light as the f-22 doesn’t mean that their plane are not lethal, only that it’s not the best in the world.

Any “inferior” plane with superior electronics and weapon system is quite dangerous! (which is not the case of the j-20) Optimizing weight and material reduction to the ridiculous level doesn’t only have advantages! What if the chinease make a plane a little lighter than the f-22, but with a lifetime of 500 hours? Every performance vector is a trade-off, not an absolute must have.

That said, the J-20 doesnt’ need to be completely superior to the f-22 and f-35 to be a danger. Something sure, if they keep upgrading the j-20 on the electronics side, it can give plenty of nightmare to the f-35.

It doesn’t matter how good Venlet is if he’s stuck working with junk.

You can have the best pastry chef in the world, but he still won’t be able to turn a turd into a chocolate cake…

Because the military would be so much better off without the B-1, B-2, C-5, C-17, and MV-22, right? Aircraft whose troubles were sorted out and now work. Who needs strategic bombers and strategic airlift? And do people still believe that whole 1997 “B-2 melts in the rain” crap?

HAHAHAHAHA! Take them out with what? Each F-35B could only hold a max of four internal missiles and if you want to load more you lose stealth. On top of that if the Super Hornets are the international road map version they will be able to have the same frontal aspect stealth as the F-35 as well as advanced IRSTs). It evens out. And that’s only counting that the F-35B doesn’t fall apart on the take off.

I didn’t the F-35A because as I stated before I still think we could get it to work and it’s not over $200 million. I am focusing entirely on the ones for the Department of the Navy because they are terrible!

I am not saying the US should make 2000. I am saying we should replace our older hornets and add a few squadrons to fill the strike fighter gap. The F-35C and F-35B as their prices exist now we might not able to afford them in enough numbers to replace our fleet one-to-one as it is. We sure as heck won’t be able to add to it. This is not counting the long term high maintenence costs that the F-35 series will have.

The Super Hornet with the interim upgrades is exactly the fighter the navy needs. It’s good enough to get the job done, has decent stealth, heavy firepower, high flexibility, high reliability, and it not only cheap to make but cheap to operate and maintain.

I agree with you somewhat. I have experiences working with all 3 contractors and have seen a lot of great performance and only a few nauseating experiences. The government and its ability to define requirements, maintain discipline, and lead contractors to success is a key driver of ourcomes.

Just more of the same, ripping off the public money.… violating the trust of the people so a General can retire from active duty and walk into a corporate 7 figure cush position… The craft should have been ready to go long before production… now there are nothing but cost over runs the the public must pay for… Congress hasn’t got the stones to force the issue and demand value for the moneys spent… Shaking my head at the typical cast of characters that perpetrate these crimes in plain sight. Nothing gets done and people get hurt or lose their lives because of cutting corners and defective and inadequate technology. So much for the modern military.….

If I were a pilot I would want the plane that is one notch or better than the guy I was flying against and that isn’t the F35. Why? Putting all things aside, we want to mass produce the F35 and sell them to anyone who has the cash. IE the F16. Give me the F22 or F18 Super Hornet and I would feel much better and so would my family.

“Failure is normal” — always the same tune.

Listen William my opinions I’ve posted here are certainly not BS comments, all the bunch of naysayers including you are the ones are posting all the BS comments claiming the JSF is a right aircraft for all air forces and navys needs.

Why should any attendees deserve to fully support and continuing the development of the failed JSF program that will never fulfil its mission requirements???

Yes the APG-81 has the exact size as the APG-79 and CAPTOR-E radars, but there fire control radars are small and have less power to generate, that’s why they can’t detect stealthy targets at extreme long range. Large fighters have a capacious nosecone than the F/A-18E/F, F-16 and F-35. The larger radar, the more power it can detect stealthy targets like the Sukhoi PAK-FA and J-20. To put it simply William, the Flanker series, the PAK-FA and J-20 will detect the F-35 first.

@ William C.

At the moment is still an unclear issue about the J-20 either being an interceptor or a strike aircraft. It depends what suitable turbofan engines the J-20 equips — if its off the shelf products either the AL-41F or WS-10 that doesn’t have turning ability and thrust vectoring, the aircraft could well end up being either a high altitude interceptor or strike aircraft. Hopefully this aircraft will be equipped with the WS-15 engine which is still under development.

William C. USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

Don’t get your hopes up, you guys are set up with too high expectations about the stealth performance of the F-35.

The F-35 is not survivable. The kind of stealth quality the aircraft has is much less than the F-22 Raptor. The JSF will need the F-22 to survive serious high-end threats and the F-35 is not designed as a top level fighter. When stealth goes naked, due to turns that the maker of the aircraft has already stated, “can increase an aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more”, rememeber the F-35 has no extreme high altitude and speed of the survivable F-22. The JSF is optimised for ‘Forward’ and ‘Side’ aspect best performance limited to X band, only.

William C. USMC & to all pro-JSF advocates

The F-35 is too vulnerable to the advanced radar systems. After China and Russia acquire brand-new radars, they could easily detect the JSF that would be seen at a much longer ranges than those others planes a.k.a the F-22. Target KPP downgraded to Low Observable (LO) from Very Low Observable (VLO) – an order of magnitude change. Conversely, while the JSF’s APG-81 AESA provides respectable air-to-air radar coverage capability, it is being optimised as a bomber radar to meet the Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) and CAIV.

@ recce1

“Larger means more weight and less agility”.

Not really, larger the airframes the better with the longer range (which don’t need to be refuelled several times to extend their patrol time at a required excessive combat radius), better agility (with thrust vectoring), larger weapons payload, more powerful radars and sensors.

Small airframes are great too no doubt about that. But they lack the range

@ recce1

Small fighters also have small nosecone which means they have less powerul radar and sensors and have small weapons load. So you be better of going for the F-15 or F-22.

Don’t you have a model airplane to put together?

If your asking about those models of aircraft I agree. The C-141 should never been retired, The Boeing B-52 could be equipped with more powerful and fuel efficent engines but those designs fall by the wayside. But the B-52 does it’s job. Granted intercontinental missles are more accurate and multiple warheads can reach different targets but who can argue against the value of carpet bombing. The B-2 doesn’t melt but the stealth paint does wash off in heavy rain. A 25 billion dollar aircraft should be bullet proof but isnt. The whole problem I think is the lack of accountabilty by the contractors who underbid their aircraft design costs.. The Boeing 747 was a vastly superior design to the C-5A and should have been adopted . But Georgia political connections got the C5 project in place. The C5 has never been able to do the mission requirements that the USAF needed in 1969. I personally saw a Boeing 747 prototype flying at 50,000 feet going NorthWest while I was in a Boeing WC-135B flying East at 35,000 feet going East.That picture in my mind I will never forget how big that aircraft looked. Dont ask me about the F-111 Arrdvark joint services aircraft fiasco The list goes on

The new TopGun 2 movie with Tom Cruise flying the F-35 is major propaganda effort for the Lockheed aircraft company. Missing on the F-35 is the tail hook and fuel dumping capacity to reduce landing weight on the aircraft carriers flight deck. The F-111 Aardvark was also a joint USAF and USN design aircraft and how many F-111 aircraft actually landed on a carrier ? The RB-66 whale and the RA-5C were sucessfull USN aircraft and how many are flying today ? none as they were retired years ago.

Our military is what has made this Country strong and is what is keeping Her strong. If we don’t advance tech. others will and you won’t like who the others are.

As an Airforce guy with 20 years of service I must say this: Politicians, money shortage and greedy shareholders are not good for developing a good fighter airplane. Also you can go for a certain commonality to reduce costs, but building a good for all all combat aircraft??? Forget it, you will end up with a ugly average aircraft. This is what happens with the F-35, everybody wants a feature, but in the end it is just a like a pc with all the bells and whistles.……but ooooh so slow.
F-15, F-16, F-5, A-10 and a few other are purposely built planes, with a good foundation and pedigree. With few investments and modification they appeared to be good (not the best) at other tasks. F-15 E strike eagle, F-16 MLU (BOMBING). But if you cross a line..you end up with a bad configuration. Ask a f-16 fighter pilot how a fully loaded F-16 with 2 MARK 85 handles.….he’ll answer: as a lorry or a bus. The f-35 has started from the wrong idea: A thing that is good for all jobs.…but it will be no more or less than the requirements…but it will still be an average plane. That’s all. The more you require, the more you pay!! But also take a look at the airbus A-400 history, you think there is a problem with the F-35? A-400 transport, that’s pure misery. Airbus boasted magnificent performance numbers, range, speed, load. Before they even HAD the engines to equip it. Of course the engines never reached the specs hoped for…and so the whole project started to decline.
Can you believe they wanted to reduce the thickness of chains for fixing the cargo, so they would be able to reach the max load capacity? What would you prefer in a rough landing? Chains resisting 3 g or 9 g ??? Ever been seated in front of a power generator in a cargo aircraft? I know what I want. Bottom line is, it has always been this way and always will be in peace time. War time is different story, remember the P-51? Spitfire ? B-17? A-10 for Vietnam? Money enough, but a clear purpose for each aircraft, so what 10 different types? The only way to go is a certain degree of commonality: Engines, Line Replacable Units, displays, radars, targeting, ew…but in a different airframe.
Just my point of view.
Regards

I do not care if it is Lockheed, Boeing, NG, or whomever as contractors they are all in default if the product contracted for isn’t delivered on time and meeting contract specs. We are cutting the size of the military, and these bloated under performing products still come to the service and Generals and Admirals protect them like there is no replacement. It is time to cut the losses whether it is the F35, the tanker, or any number of over budget programs are concerned. If the contractor isn’t performing fire them. It is what they do with their employees who do not perform. If not force them to make the product good on their money. Then we will see if they are committed to producing that which they contracted to produce. Enough bad mouthing equipment in the field. It may not be the tip of the spear, but neither is the stuff that has to be fixed ten years after the contract was awarded, and still doesn’t meet original contract specs. Lesson: we must stop beating our heads against the wall, because it feels so good when we quit.

That would be a YF-23.…not a FB-22…the Navy should have bought it when the AF didn’t…I was amazed that the Navy wanted a single engine fighter since they have had a long standing aversion to single engine planes since Vet Nam…

The F-16 Block 60 cost the UAE about 65 mil a pop. The Gripen would be an awesome aircraft to purchase… We (USA) can sell aircraft to all the countries of the world but they will not buy an aircraft from another country. The new Tanker from Airbus was superior to the Boeing version, but as you can see, Airbus lost out after Boeing complained of foul play… In the old days, a bomber was a bomber (B-52), a fighter was a fighter (F-15A), and the close air support was the F-16 and A-10. Now we build an aircraft that can do everything so we pack as much as possible into an aircraft and expect it to work… it doesn’t!!!! Time to rethink our strategy and go back to the basics. It probably be much better, at least cheaper!

I don’t know if it helps but the 2011 GAO report has some additional information, although not complete. Look at GAO-11-233SP.

Having been involved in both programs, The F-35 is a huge jump from the F-22 just like the F-22 was from the Have Blue.

As for comparing to the J-20, that’s a fairy tale much like the hype of the MiG-25.

@ F-35 JSF A LEMON — Are you done yet?!?!?!?!?!?!

The flash and dash of all of the high performance jet engine powered aircraft in the Viet Nam war are all out shadowed by a prop driven plane the A1E Skyraider. That aircraft could loiter over the combat area for hours and bomb hotspots of enemy activity. Some versions of the A1E could also carry passengers out of hostile situations. Ask any A1E pilot which plane they would rather fly ? The F-35 might have been a great aircraft if Lockheed would only have asked the pilots what they need in a fighter aircraft not a multi mission aircraft system doomed to failure. Almost any problem can be resolved if enough money is thrown at it.

@ Yo Yo

So bloody what. Your comments to the fact claiming the JSF is the aircraft of choice is ignorant.

At the moment is still an unclear issue about the J-20 either being an interceptor or a strike aircraft. It depends what suitable turbofan engines the J-20 equips — if its off the shelf products either the AL-41F or WS-10 that doesn’t have turning ability and thrust vectoring, the aircraft could well end up being either a high altitude interceptor or strike aircraft. Hopefully this aircraft will be equipped with the WS-15 engine which is still under development and could incorporate thrust vectoring and supercrusing mode.

@ Yo Yo

I reject your statement

I reckon you and you colleagues from Lockheed Martin began to spam the sites with false and misleading information, particularly how well the F-35 can out turn the Su-27/30 Flanker family, T-50 PAK-FA and J-20… LOL…

The JSF will be totally outclassed by new Russian and Chinese aircraft and radar systems and the F-35 is also far more expensive than the much more capable F-22 Raptor.

@ Yo Yo

Absolutely rubbish

With the proliferation of the F-35s is not making both China and Russia nervous. Despite all the advertisements and real data of their “super jets” planned “prowess”, the T-50 PAK-FA and J-20 Mighty Dragon are at the level of development as the F-35. Russia and China will continue to rely on the anti-F-35 crowd to do their service of truly inflating the capabilities of their 4+ generation fighters.

The F-35 is better than anything flying. Watch these video’s. http://​vimeo​.com/​3​4​3​7​045. http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​_​p​o​p​u​p​?​v​=​K​i​8​6​x​1​W​K​P​m​E​&​a​m​p​;​amp;… The F-35B trials were a big success & way beyond the Harrier. http://​www​.es​.northropgrumman​.com/​s​o​l​u​t​i​o​n​s​/​f​3​5ta.…
Having been involved with many programs over the past five decades, the best thing to do is get the planes out into the using organizations. Softwae is always a problem.

What a joke. After 15 years and tens of billions of dollars, they actually managed to take off and land a dozen or so times on the deck of a big ship.

Something Eugene Ely first accomplished over a CENTURY ago…

IM 55 now and I just wish I could have been a pilot.

“I just hope that this aircraft does not see combat until these issues are addressed“
Trust me. They will not send an aircraft into combat or anywhere besides test flights until they know that the aircraft is fully functional and has no problems. With The F-35C for example, the tail hook is absolutely essential for it to land on aircraft carriers, which is what the C model was designed for.

I think they should keep the C model at least. The C model was designed for aircraft carriers. If an airbase came under attack, and the runway was destroyed, that ends the use of F-35s for that attack. If you have some on a nearby carrier, you could use them instead.

These might be what I end up flying when/if I make it in. I hope they get the problems fixed or scrap the program before then. If they are still trying to fix it by then, then I will probably walk up to whoever decided to keep the program running and slap them across the face. I like the idea of the F-35, but if its costing more than its worth, especialy when we are 14+ trillion dollars in debt, then we need to scrap the project all together or redesign it.

So What you are saying is they like to make more money? They have no regard for the job they PROMISED to do at the price they PROMISED to do it for in the bidding process? I don’t believe that if they did the job on time and on budget they would get paid less. That is not how contracts work. In this case, as in many others not connected to LM, they did not do exactly what they were paid to do. If they did I would not be spending my time writing this reply to your idiotic rant.
Former USAF.

Retitle the topic F-35 boss: We’ll fix the jet — it will just continue to fail even more.

Are they really spending what they claim they are spending on this fighter or are they siphoning off most of the cash and using it to develop black-ops aircraft like the TR3B?? You know those flying black triangles that people with night-vision goggles are seeing in the night sky that look to be 60 miles up???

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.