F-35 by the numbers

F-35 by the numbers

The F-35 Lightning II program is too big, important and politically connected to fail. As of today, it’s in no real danger.

That’s despite another report from Congress’ watchdog this week jammed with eye-popping numbers and warnings about the program’s long-term prospects.

The Government Accountability Office even went so far as to recommend that DoD “analyze cost and program impacts from potentially reduced future funding levels” – in other words, plan now in case you get less cash than you say you’ll need to keep this party going.


“This sensitivity analysis should determine the impact of funding on aircraft deliveries, unit costs, and total tactical air force structure resulting from at least three different assumed annual funding profiles, all lower than the current funding projection,” GAO wrote.

If there’s one thing the F-35 needs just as much as continued political top cover, it’s cash.

As we’ve observed before, the F-35 plan in effect today assumes it’ll get about $13 billion per year until 2035, separate and apart from the rest of the defense budget. Plus the Air Force must not only buy F-35As in full-rate production, but also its new KC-46A tankers and new bombers at the same time. If Pentagon officials are worried about a steep drop-off in budgets – apart from sequestration, of course – that’s not reflected in today’s plans.

Here are a few data points from GAO’s report, numbers that taken together give a sort of snapshot of the behemoth program:

2,457: The total number of F-35s the U.S. government wants to develop and acquire through 2037. That is down from the initial program goal, in 2001, of 2,866 aircraft.

$395.7 billion: The latest estimate for the total cost to develop and buy the F-35. That’s up from an estimate of $278.5 billion in the 2007 baseline and up from the original program estimate of $233 billion in 2001.

$1 billion: The cost overruns on the first four annual procurement contracts; taxpayers’ share of that is about $672 million. That adds about $11 million to the price of each of the 63 total aircraft under contract.

$373 million: Additional costs of “concurrency” – modifications to aircraft DoD has already bought that were made necessary by discoveries in testing that came after they were built.

365: The number of F-35 the Pentagon plans to buy (for about $69 billion) before the program’s developmental flight tests are finished.

179: The number of aircraft the Pentagon will delay through fiscal 2017 to reduce “concurrency” risks. Here’s what GAO said about that:

This marked the third time in as many years that near-term procurement quantities had been reduced. Combined with other changes since the 2007 revised baseline, total JSF procurement quantity has been reduced by 410 aircraft through fiscal year 2017. Since the department still plans to eventually acquire the full complement of U.S. aircraft—2,443 production jets—the procurement costs, fielding schedules, and support requirements for the deferred aircraft will be incurred in future years beyond 2017. The new plan also stretches the period of planned procurement another two years to 2037.

It continued: “With the latest reduction, the program now plans to procure a total of 365 aircraft through 2017, about one-fourth of the 1,591 aircraft expected in the 2002 plan.”

$35,200: The Air Force’s target cost per flight hour for its F-35A. That’s compared to about $22,500 per flight hour for an F-16 today – though program and Pentagon officials say it’s apples-and-oranges trying to compare F-35 costs to “legacy” aircraft.

“Comparative data for the Navy’s CV and Marine Corps’ STOVL with the legacy aircraft to be replaced was not available,” GAO wrote.

6: Number of primary test objectives the F-35 completed in 2011, out of 11.

972: Number of test flights F-35s completed in 2011 – more than double that of the year before. The program completed has more than 21 percent of its total 60,000 planned test points.

24 million: Lines of code “necessary for the JSF’s capability,” GAO said; that includes 9.5 million aboard the aircraft itself. The F-35 needs three times as many lines of software code as the F-22 and six times as many as the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet.

$80 million: The cost to bring the F-35’s initial pilot helmet into spec while at the same time developing “a second, less capable helmet” that crews can use as a stopgap. Whichever helmet ends up in use, it won’t be “integrated into the baseline aircraft” until 2014 or later, “increasing the risks of a major system redesign.”

Join the Conversation

Let’s keep paying the contractor more to screw up than we do if they brought the airplane in under budget and ahead of schedule, and then wonder why it took so long to develop and cost so much. Because, that’s the kind of America we live in now.

I love how DOD won’t even think about Jan and what is going to happen, when our law makers take $500 Billion out of the Defense Budget on top of what has already been cut. This has been a Dream of the Left in this country for years, to Stop as much Defense funding as possible and Here & Now is their Big Chance, and they know it. DOD must think that if they don’t talk about it will just go away so how,” The Ostrich Mentality ” . They are wrong. I’m sure they know that “When it Happens” their Gold Platted Monstrosity that has NEVER met a schedule, or preformed as Originally promised has to go the way of the DODO bird. Or will they continue Funding it by Gutting all the other programs that actually work and really hollow the US Forces.

Wanh!,wanh!, wanh!; looks like Norway and the other foreign militarys don’t agree with you! Have a nice day! :D

Our current dept to China is over $800 billion. We could have paid off almost half of that with the money we spent on the F-35. The F-35 program is the MOST expensive weapons program in history. What have we to show for that money we spent? A small amount of fighter jets that still don’t work. These jets haven’t done any real tests like live weapons firing or spins. The carrier version still can’t land on a carrier. The amount of money spent on this program and the lack of results to show for it is entirely obscene. The worst part is that the cost in only projected to go up due to the many terrible design flaws in these jets. This is the biggest waist of defense dollars in the 21st century to date.

while i am critical of the program too you need to be fair & accurate or you will lose credibility. $400B is the total cost for the program, development & procurement. We are only about $60B sunk.

The real irony I see is that it’s the same people who want us to get involved all over the world (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya and watch while Syria is next) who want the massive cuts in defense spending. And how ironic that they also don’t want to cut funding to all the military dictatorships (hello Pakistan) who spend the money on their military.

Well keep in mind it took 20+ years to get the V-22 to work.

who said that other countries have opinion?

They choose an immaterial aircraft even before trying it in SIMULATION!!!

But the question is whether the f-35 is really that necessary to fulfill that role. Is the f-35 more important than the underlying infrastructure? Did lockheed really defined the future properly?

I think we can put a lot of no there. Don’t misunderstand me, the f-35 will have a role to fill, but the f-35 as a one-size-fit-all, hell no. The f-35 sound like bean-counting over common good sense.

Solution is sooooooooo easy.……

The F-35 is to replace the F-16C well the A is just fine start fielding them then. Push the C back several years since the Navy is happy with F-18Es and no major foreign buyers are buying B and C version anyway. Then scrap the B since its cost overruns is killing the whole program.

F-35 isn’t the greatest plane I hope they upgrade like some in the USAF are doing the F-15C with new features and buy some more F-22s with proper oxygen systems to them.

Where are my numbers wrong? This is an article with China’s hold of US debt adjusted for inflation: http://​usgovinfo​.about​.com/​o​d​/​m​o​n​e​y​m​a​t​t​e​r​s​/​s​s​/​How

The V-22 never passed the safety requirements that were set on it. It was put into the field before it was considered to be fully ready. It still has a terrible accident rate and it seems that it’s only real improvement over the Chinook based helos that it is replacing is a great speed increase. The inside of the V-22 is smaller and it also can’t hold many vehicles for special forces to operate from.

I think a replacement for the Chinook should have just been a better dual rotor helicopter that focused on improving in all areas rather than sacrifice the performance and utility of other areas to get a drastic speed increase. If they went that route instead of making a complex rotating rotor then it would not have take so long. Nevertheless, the Osprey is here to stay and there’s not much that can be done about it now.

Lance

I think it going is going to come down to money. If my math is right 365 aircraft at 69 billion dollars is 189 million dollars a copy, can we afford this? Is the USAF going to do CAS with a 189 million dollar plane? What about the USMC, this was the Harrier replacement and the F-35B is slated to cost even more. At 189 million plus is this really the best platform to move mud for the Marines.

Banksters would love to have these jets in their banksters military because they would make more money inside the country and commit more crimes outside the country without being punished.

He dinged you for saying the F-35 program has cost $400 billion. He didn’t say anything about China.

The article above just said that the F-35 program cost has reached $395.7 billion. I was just rounding.

We live in a drug-doping exceptionally criminal nation.

Leave my F-35’s alone.

Where to begin!, Ha! .…The Boeing CH-47 Chinook (1962) is a ” heavy-lift ” tandem rotor transport helicopter, Flown by the Army as the CH-47D and F (mostly). Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)
.….The Bell Boeing MV-22 Osprey (2007) was designed to replace the Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight (1963) is a ” medium-lift ” tandem rotor transport helicopter. Max. takeoff weight: 24,300 lb (11,000 kg)
.….The Air Force SOCOM has purchased a version as the CV-22. Max. takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
Apples and Oranges.

Black owl apparently has nothing better to do than to troll this website with his ignorance and obsession with the f-35.

Excellent brief on the numbers compilation, Philip.

2440+ US units will no doubt be unlikely to be afforded, especially considering the USAF can only afford about 20 jets annually today!

“The latest estimate for the total cost to develop and buy the F-35.” They were speaking of money we haven’t spent yet.

Tee , its not a dream of the left, its a dream of the tea party which wants to slash government expenditure full stop

You did not read what I wrote correctly. I said Chinook BASED. The CH-46 is heavily related to the Chinook. It’s getting replaced by the MV-22. Thank you for giving me a bunch of numbers. Now tell me: How many vehicles can the Osprey lift? What types of vehicles can it carry either internally or with lines attached?

I don’t think that’s right. That’s an estimate of money we have already spent on the F-35 as a whole. Please give me a source that explains otherwise.

go here: http://​www​.acq​.osd​.mil/​a​r​a​/​a​m​/​s​ar/ click on the Dec 11 report. scroll all the way down. you will see the total spent on prior years for F-35 aircraft and engine was $66B. The remaining $300+B is planned to be spent FY13+.

You do realize I have commented on other articles and I have made several comments that don’t mention the F-35. It’s just that every time news comes out about the F-35 it is usually very bad news and only shows how the F-35 is obscenely expensive and not worth it, but will continue to get funding for the only reason that politics keep it going and it has a cool looking airframe. This one paragraph is a sum up of about the past 3 years of the program.

I think it’s noteworthy that the good admirals and general talking up Air Sea battle mention a new bomber by name but never seem to talk very many specifics when it comes to tacair. The fiscal reality coupled with the basing issues in the western Pacific will come together at some point in the future I think and cause a truncated buy. The X47B seems to be moving along smoothly and some of the testing certainly points to the USN deploying a serious non kinetic weapon on it, for Day 1 SEADs type stuff no doubt. Really calls into doubt the need for a overly stealthy strike aircraft in addition to the X47B.

Holy Crap! You mean we still have the opportunity to spend that money on something useful?

Why would anyone want to buy a defective jet with no practical weight growth margin for upgrades over the life of the program? Be interesting to see where USAF (and others) come up with the extra annual squadron ops money to pay for this nonsense. And, as delivered, it won’t be able to take on emerging threats.

I agree, with no room for future upgrades this aircraft will be a ” One Trick Pony ” that is already behind the curve, with NO TRICK. With Russia moving right along to having the SU T-50 ( PAK-50) in service by 2015 a few years before the F-35 goes into service and their new SU-35’s fighters already entering into service. Both with their wing mounted “L Band” radars and their new IRST systems. The F-35 will be out classed by the time they do get into service. China is also mass producing their J-10’s & J-11’s as fast as they can, while in talks with Russia to buy 48 SU-35’s which they will copy and mass produce as well. So by the time the F-35 enters service the sky’s will be full of faster,much more maneuverable , highly advanced fighters.
http://​www​.defencetalk​.com/​f​o​u​r​t​h​-​t​-​5​0​-​s​t​e​a​l​t​h​-fi

Talking is one thing, doing it is a whole different matter. If you knew anything about Russian’s technology of late, you’d know that their plan to mass produce the T-50 by 2015 is a bunch of B.S. Just take their Bulava missile and the latest submarine for example. They have made some progress, but still a long way from the former Soviet Union. As for the T-50, they would be lucky to field anything by 2020. So far, after a decade of failed attempt and false speculation, they managed to create 3 prototype, of which one of them actually used part from the first prototype, and conduct barely over 120 test flights. Neither the Chinese and Russian will have anything that can match the F-35 for another decade or more. By then, the U.S. would be testing its 6th generation fighter and the latest bomber.

Lets not forget about the cracks in the tail section of the T-50. It is pure arrogance from the Russians and the Chinese, that feeds the idea, that you can just throw RAM on a modified, Su-30, and call it 5th generation.
The T-50 should have never been allowed to pull such high Gs in testing, and now the Russians will pay for it in years until IOC. I suspect that the Chinese will receive the same rude awakening.

Then by that logic why do we even need to buy the F-35 if the Russians and Chinese are far away from fielding their own 5th gen jets. We should just put it down and focus on perfecting the technology for a 6th gen fighter by making technology demonstrators and keep our capability with buying Block III Super Hornets.

Russia turned down the deal with China for the 48 Su-35s. The fact that the Chinese wanted to buy only a small number easily gave away that they only wanted to copy the design and the Russians don’t want to give the Chinese anymore tech advances. This was a smart move on Russia’s part.

Good to hear(see),The F-35,lives on . What a beautiful design.

F-35 related article. Panic and run around in circles as usual people.

And read about costs increases, schedule slips, and performance goals not met on time.

Can someone explain this in simple terms if possible?

This program reminds of how doctors of old use to ‘bleed’ patients to heal them. We have the same mentality right now. Dr. Lockhead says “let me just bleed you (the country) some more and I’m sure you’ll start to feel better.”

The report from the GAO doesn’t jibe with the relatively glowing assessment from Lorne Thompson (Lexington Institute) that was recently published in Forbes.

So someone is full of what makes the grass grow green!

Pat,_Your simple expalanation:_(1) Current Air Force F-16, Navy F-18, andf Marine Corp AV-8B aircraft all due for replacement. Something’s got to replace them._(2) Military uses advance tecnology to get edge on competition (real and perceived military threats). Drives complexity and risk of successful replacement program._(3) F-35 developed as next generation replacement for all three, using common components. Differences in size: Air Force is plain vanilla

Pat (2): Navy, bigger wings and tougher landing gear for carrier landings; Marines, vertical lift (so most expensive). (4) Pentagon never really budgets for all costs or even most likely program cost. If they did, program would look so expensive Congress would never support. (5) Pentagon builds case for large quantity based on perceived threats.

Pat (3): (6) In a rush to meet that threat, Pentagon “acquisition strategy” is to develop aircraft and procure quantities before fully tested and certified so no break in production occurs. This is called concurrency. Early aircraft used for training the trainers. Can be fixed later as problems identified in testing, but costs even more money. (7) Factory tooled to produce an economic quantity per year. As delays occur, quantities delayed, driving up unit costs.

Pat (4): (8) Move is moved from planned procurement aircraft to cover increases/delays in development, increasing total program cost. (9) Each year, various develop, testing and production problems occur, increasing total program costs and leading Congress and public to believe Pentagon is incompetent. True, but not material. (10) If no additional money provided, quantities cut as offset. (This step results in deferrals of aircraft procurements into “outyears” — beyond the five year plan — where they are never bought.)

Pat (5): (11) Contractors love this untruthful “low-balling” process because it keeps them fully employed, making extra profits every time they and government screw up and don’t get it right. (12) When the initial performance targets not achieved, performance tests and criteria are dumbed-down so system can “pass”. (13) Warfighters get less capable, fewer and more costly systems. (14) Happens EVERY time, with ALL weapon systems. (15) Only good point is it also happens in our adversary’s programs, too.

The Chinese have more than AK-47s.

All of your points are good except for the last two. This does not happen every time and it does not happen in our adversary’s programs all the time either. The teen-series fighters are proof of that as well as most of our systems made during the ending years of the Cold War. A vast majority of them were improvements over their replacements. Also in regards to the F-35, this is new in that it has NEVER happened on the same scale. The F-35’s numbers are breaking the record and going well beyond. This is also new in that the F-35 costs are now affecting literally every other weapons program we have and have caused us to cancel an obscene amount of other useful programs.

As for our adversaries, I can’t really speak for all of them, but it is clear that Russia’s designs have only gotten better and more lethal. I think contractors tried to do the same thing for the Sukhoi PAK-FA, but when the program wasn’t moving as fast as it could have Vladimir Putin went directly to the Sukhoi Corporation and fired everybody that was a problem. The Russians simply have no tolerance for this and neither should we if we want to keep an edge over them.

Is there a source for this? This is my first time hearing about it.

For the cost of 8 F-35’s you could buy 100 A-29’s… I’m just sayin’…

He read correctly. You didn’t write well. You also said, “I think a replacement for the Chinook…” The Air Force and the Marines never flew the Chinook. Would have been much better to be specific in yoru argument.

The CH46 and the Osprey that is replacing it have almost identical ramp width/height and lift capabilities. So much for your vehicle comparison. Maybe YOU should research it before speaking?

There is little that can be done to helos to get over a 100mph increase in speed. Helo’s w/counter rotating blades and a push rotor have a chance but setting them up with ramps is problematic. Walking into props is never a good day.

The same ones known about for some time now, nothing new here. Despite the programs earlier problems, progress is being made (see increase in test flights) and nobody is going to kill it anytime soon.

Like that stops the Chinese. The fact that the majority of cyber intrusions originate from China, and the fact that they are leapfrogging technologically, in such a short period of time, is no coincidence.

I said a replacement for the Chinook, but I earlier said Chinook-BASED. You’re right in that I wasn’t very specific and that was an error. However, I’m not talking about the ramp width/height. I’m talking about the vehicles that it can actually use and transport for an op. How many vehicles and what types of vehicles will the Osprey carry during an op? Can it carry anything by towing it with lines?

Do you know why the Chinese asked to but Su-35s from Russia? The Chinese have great difficulty getting anything from Russia’s fighter programs or advanced designs unless they steal an actual unit or the Russians sell them a rejected design like the MiG-1.44 that was used to make the J-20. I later learned that this might be because Russian engineers and designers have a long history or making their major calculations and notes on paper. They write out by hand a good portion of their schematics and whatnot on paper, which a computer cannot hack into. By comparison we practically abuse computers to do the numbers and put the secretive stuff on computers with parts that we could have potentially paid a Chinese company to make. Maybe we should start writing out our own stuff on paper and keep the Chinese from getting it.

Just wait to till January to find out if that’s really true.

The short answer is it can carry any vehicle the CH46 carried. You are asking what vehicles the Osprey can transport as if it’s a reason it shouldn’t have been purchased but you’re forgetting the aircraft it’s replacing couldn’t carry big vehicles either.

BTW, the Osprey also has almost twice the range of the CH46.

Got a link to the tailhook tests? I seem to recall LM saying they were going to test their ‘fix’ in 2Q 2012. We are about to run out of 2Q 2012. That would be yet another schedule slip and incidentally William, until this little tailhook thing is hammered out there isn’t any meaningful flight testing going on for the C model because there is no point, without knowing if it works there is no way to be sure this is the airframe that needs to be tested.

Up Up and away.The special interests are at work.

I’m not saying that it shouldn’t have been bought. I’m saying that it sacrifices other areas that are very useful for performance parameters that we didn’t necessary have a dire need for. There are some things that the CH-46 can do that the Osprey can’t. Because of this there is a loss in capability. That’s great that the Osprey has almost twice the range. Would it have been that hard to make a dual rotor helo that had almost twice the range as the CH-46?

You’ve given me the short answer about the Osprey’s vehicle carrying capacity. Now give me the long answer in detail. You know what it is.

Norway’s government has just authorized the purchase of — wait for it — two aircraft.
So what is Norway scoring?
The Pentagon has agreed to integrate a big Norwegian missile system into the F-35.

Norway has developed a Joint Strike Missile (JSM) which it hopes friendly foreign militaries will invest in. But Norway’s partner nations were reluctant to support the JSM unless it could be integrated into the aircraft that everyone supposedly wants to fly — the F-35.

So it looks like the Norwegian missile became the perfect bargaining chip. If the U.S. wanted to see Norway to put down money on the F-35, then the Pentagon had to support the JSM and integrate it into the strike fighter program.

Total market potential for the JSM is estimated to be between 3.3 and 4.2 billion USD, says Norway. Its ministry of defense must be whooping in victory.
http://​www​.businessinsider​.com/​f​-​3​5​-​j​o​i​n​t​-​s​t​r​ike–

Panic and run around in circles or bury ones head in the sand? What to do, what to do?
This whole program is the perfect example of all that is wrong with the industrial/military complex that Eisenhower warned about. One big make-work project that has everything considered but its real purpose. Everyone gets a cut of the pie domestically and internationally for this eventual hangar-queen and no doubt in years to come, if those machinist continue in their uppity ways, the monopoly that LM will become will threaten them with threats of cheaper Chinese labour. And no one will see the irony.

What can the CH46 do that the Osprey can’t?

Doubling the range would not have been an easy feat with the same airframe/payload but increasing speel over 100mph would not have been possible. Both the increased speed and range of the Osprey are the reasons justifying its acquisition in line with a Marine doctrine seeking to influence the battle farther inland.

You keep making inaccurate assertions. First it’s a Chinook (it’s not), then it had to sacrifice performance (it didn’t), then the CH46 can do things the Osprey can’t (it doesn’t). Is asking a long answer to a requirement that doesn’t exist your next refuge? The short answer that “it’s the same as the CH46” wasn’t enough?

You have a bad habit of making allegations that are incorrect and asking other folks to fix your mistake. Do your own research first?

Actually you’re the one making those allegations. The CH-46 is related to the Chinook. I said Chinook-based. I already know it’s not a Chinook. And, yes, it had to sacrifice the ability to carry certain vehicles, especially internally.

And you still didn’t (or won’t) answer my question so let me ask you again: Give me the long answer. Do I need to explain to you what the ITV is and why it exists?

No question about it .… 2400+ planes at 35K$ the hour that will give a nice sum. I already can anticipate that either the pilots will get less flight hours or less planes will be “flight-ready”.

Sure, explain the ITV. Maybe you’ll figure out we haven’t had a vehicle that fits in the CH46 for over a decade either. (Nothing’s been given up)

Give me the long answer first.

So? How many Mustangs can you buy with a F-15? A lot.

Don’t know what convoluted line of thought you want me to make for you but I sure am not going to waste my time looking it up for you.

You are making the case that the Osprey can’t lift vehicles the CH46 can. Problem is the CH46 hasn’t been able to internally load conventional Marine vehicles for two decades. There has been no loss of capability as you have repeatedly and erroneously charged. Do your own homework!

At over $200 million per bird (and climbing) I’d rather have 150+ Tomahawk missiles.

Just think, for a price of a singe F-35 we could get the entire load out of a SSGN-the ultimate stealth platform

Doesn’t Q2 go through to August? Last I’ve read the planned date for actual carrier landings hasn’t been changed. Considering the problems that have been encountered and overcome thus far, I rather doubt the tailhook issue can’t be fixed.

Both drug use and violent crimes are in decline. So things are factually getting better in those regards.

While the concept was a good one, this reminds me of a Bridge Too Far. The technology that was supposed to make this aircraft a wonder plane simply isn’t there yet and we’re spending a lot of money trying to force it. The end result will be an extremely expensive platform that cannot do what it was advertised to do. Eventually you will see the procurement numbers drop even further resulting in the Pentagon scrambling to try and figure out how to fund keeping aircraft they expected to do away with like the AV-8, EA-6B, F/A-18 etc.

What about protection for AM2 matting. Vertical variant will melt the aluminum currently configured for Harrier exhaust temperatures, a fact denied by some. SBIR company in Long Island and matting producer in Alabama were ready 3 years ago to begin coating production runs. Whatever happened? I doubt that a “revolutionary” matting will be designed to replace the AM2 in this budget climate. Is this on anyone’s critical planning path?

Most of the post on here simply amaze me because unless you have been involved in a program to develope a new aircraft you have no idea of what goes on. All you want to do is blame the contractor. Well the wake-up call is that a majority of the problems are brought on by our own government and military changing plans as the program moves along. Lets add this, oh and we want you to add this and don’t forget we would really like it to do this and only weigh this much. So many times they push things on the contractors that they know full and well will not work but want them to figure it out. Software is another issue. The writers of the software are moving along and here comes the military wanting to add another function thus this causes the engineers to go back and rewrite the software. Then on top of this you throw in the works a zoo like we have running our government in DC and have devalued our dollar to nothing and you just sit there and wonder why this airplane or any new product cost are so high and overrun. I’m sure the contractor makes there fair share of mistakes but don’t go around blamming them for the entire thing.

The only thing more expensive than a First Rate Air Force is a Second Rate Air Force! Other than a few F-22s, all of our operational fighters first flew in the 1970s. Russia & China are building fighters to match F-22s.

The alternative (three seperate stealth fighters) would have been even more expensive. It’s not like they didn’t do trade studies on this thing.

They bought the Super Hornet didn’t they? By the way, did you ever figure out how to get them to operate from gators? <snort, guffaw>

But nobody here is putting the blame solely on lockheed, but their part of responsibility is much bigger than you want to see it. I believe that the product requested is unrealistic (3 different planes, 1 production line, low cost, lightweight, reliability, …) and yes everything the pentagon change does have an impact on the time line and budget.

All the engineering flaw are the fault of lockheed and nobody else; it’s not because more paperwork is being requested that the landing gear got too short. It’s Lockheed’s fault for ALL the engineering flaw. And don’t forget the management, they are the people making key decision. IMHO It’s the fault of Lochkeed management for having their engineer not working properly, and not being directed to the right way.

Pentagon fault is for thing like not having hammered Lockheed properly, especially at the beginning.

I agree with your concept. CAS is like nothing so much as a shooting gallery through which the planes have to fly over and over again. It’s also a critical function that has to be done well to keep the ground guys on our side alive. The Marines don’t need a mud mover, but they absolutely need something that can operate off PSP, something that can put the eggs where they have to go, and something that can stay alive while other planes use it for target practice. In other words, if the replacement can’t do the job better than the Harrier, we’re wasting (a LOT of) money on the wrong plane.

Please read this. Simply put, critical capabilities of the F-35 have not kept pace with the growth of Chinese A2AD ability. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009–01.html

I actually realized I was wrong after your first post in reply to mine. I was looking at data from the CH-47 and thought it was the CH-46 by mistake. You are an interesting individual and I decided to continue arguing with you just to get inside your head. Looks like I succeeded. Have a nice day!

You only left out the part where the Chinese sit there and strip all of our and Russia’s research off our computer servers and then build “corrected” copies of Russian aircraft. The problem is, you can’t duplicate something you don’t understand, especially when you put in silly cosmetics to make it look like it isn’t the same plane.
And I completely agree that continuous improvement, rather than building a new from-scratch model, is far cheaper and safer and also requires less forces impact to deploy. If the Pentacle had been smart, this is the way thousands of generals could have retired to million-dollar-a-year careers playing golf every day.

Yes, and based on past experience, the gentlemen discussed makes a lot of money to paint the roses red.

We also haven’t heard anything about landing the same engine on carrier decks…

“Doesn’t Q2 go through to August? ”

LOL I swear in the encyclopedia they must have a picture of you next to the entry for “fail.”

“Isnt a 10 billion dollar overrun the same as a saving 10 billion ?”

Classic.

The F-35 is going to go down as the largest procurement failure in history.

It will be fun for future generation to read back on how everyone with an IQ above thier boot size knew it and laugh at the screwups who defended it.

This is a well known contractor troll. Show us the government spec which said the F-35 didnt have to land on a carrier, show us the spec that said that pulling 4Gs was good enough, show us the spec that said MTBF for major systems should be 15 minutes.

Blaming the customer just shows how corrupt and beyong hope the contractor culture is. It cant be fixed it needs to be gutted and started again. The biggest threat to our security are contracts who put cover-thier-ass-at-all-costs ahead of everythign else including our security. And when you tell them that they tell you — “we dont give a shit.”

We dont have an military industral problem we have an organised crime problem.

Tails are notorious for crack problems but when you have rumours about cracks in the the main structural beams then you know it must be the F-35 program.

One suggestion is to name the F-35 “the Rhino”. Because it’s ugly, manouverable as a bus, near extinct and the only place you will be able to see it is: bombing in the future African countries with no air defenses.

Well DONE. Now just insert any of about 2 dozen programs’ names in where it says “JSF” and your explanation will cover all the DoD Acq failures since 2000. SYSTEMIC PROBLEM yet they love to treat each program failure or “re-baslining”, as an isolated occurance that “won’t happen next time”.

Had to change your name again I see oblat/itfunk. Ever get tired of being such a loser?

Typot: It’s not because more paperwork is being requested that the ARRESTOR HOOK is too short.

Well, except that they ended up with three separate stealth fighters anyway, each more expensive (and less effective) than it would have been if designed for its particular role. ‘Commonality’ is a pipe dream when you’re working at the cutting edge of technical capability. You can’t have it, and pretending that you can just costs more in the long run.

If one were to follow your suggestions we wouldn’t have an Air Force or Navy. You know the Super Hornet is referred to as the “Rhino” for carrier deck operations right?

Oddly enough all of the F-35 variants have already pulled more than 4Gs and don’t suffer from a 15 minute MTBF. Actual carrier testing for the F-35C is scheduled for 2013.

All you care about is your psychotic hate of military contractors and the military in general. You have no interest in US security.

The Chinese have difficulty getting anything from Russia’s fighter programs or design advances without stealing an actual unit or unless the Russians sell them an old or rejected design. The Chinese even asked to buy 48 Su-35S Super Flankers because they knew it would be difficult to get them otherwise. The Russians obviously refused. The reason for the Chinese having such difficulty is most likely because Russian engineers and designers have a long history of writing out everything on paper. No matter what you can’t hack paper. The Russians also produce their own computer chips and electronics. By comparison we practically abuse computers for development and then keep the data on hard drives that we might have potentially paid a Chinese company to make. I don’t know the full details of how Russian fighter programs work, but whatever they’re doing it is damned effective. The Chinese can’t seem to copy the Russian weapons that well. They have a really big problem copying engines especially. A lot of their compressor fan blades are still imported from Russia. Their factories still can’t perfectly reproduce the technology. The Chinese are still way behind and have a quite a way to go before they can catch up to us… unless we or the Russians make really stupid mistake.

So you were just stirring the pot because you knew you were wrong all the time? Mature!

Well at least you aren’t advertising some BS article asking folks to waste time reading it (yep I fell for that one also). Just goes to show how credible and worth reading you are. Note the –16 (woops, jumped to –17) you got with this line of thought (just your FIRST post, not cumulative). Heck, you’re another itfunk. Congrats!

You didn’t get inside my head. You just gave everyone a window into your character.

Obviously the number of +1s or –1s actually matters. Obviously the random people who get on the internet that give them to me must be experts on my character. Obviously you, who have never met me and is still blatantly wired up from my little mind game with you, would know my character. Right… Good luck with that line of thinking.

Taxpayer

I see it everyday where I am at

Roger that!

No, its not. It’s going to be workhorse just like the F-16. That 2,440 aircraft inventory objective needs to be cut so reflect incorporating about 600 to 800 UCAVs into a revolutionary assault team. And the whole thing was designed CAD-CAM, so anyone can build it. That’s also why the unit costs should be seriously dropping. (CAD-CAM designed should result in less than 5%.) The fact that the production costs aren’t dropping more than they have is because the government let’s contractor get away with this kind of gouging.

You know the Super Hornet is actually out there landing on carriers and killing bad guys right?

$35K per flight hour, and people wonder why the many of the Scandinavian countries are going Gripen NG at around $6K per flight hour. Now that Norway got LM to add their New JSM to the F-35’s list of approved weapons, I wonder if their order will remain at just the 2 they have kinda commented too? And as for Canada and Australia, I think the F-35 just got way to expensive for them to purchase and operate. Not what they were Promised when the originally signed up.

The US will never buy all 2440 JSF’s that they want “Sequestration” will cut the main JSF & LCS’s budgets right out from under them. The only way that will be avoided ( and I highly doubt it will happen ) would be for the Repub’s to will the Presidency, take control of the Senate, and keep control of the House. In other words get ready for a REALLY BAD JANUARY 2013 for defense spending.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Part of me thinks the cuts in defense spending will do some good. Maybe it will actually force the services to stop buying these high tech white elephants like the F-35 and LCS. Maybe it will force them to wake up and get smart… At least that’s what I’m hoping for.

The fact that you are still replying on this thread even though the objective argument is long gone is proof that I am still in your head. I look forward to playing more mind games with you in the future. ;)

No, quarter 1 is JAN thru MAR. Q2 is APR thru June. Carrier validation was supposed to happen next year but that was provided the damn tailhook as designed worked. If their little fix fails then carrier validation is going to be shoved back because you don’t go landing on actual carriers until you’ve done some live air frame stress testing and you can’t do that until you know the existing tailhook works. If their fix doesn’t that means the whole thing needs to be re-engineered and that pushes back the C model who the hell knows how long. Not to worry, I’m sure the fans will line up to explain why it’s acceptable to spend tens of billions and 15+ years of development on a carrier fighter only to find it can’t land on a carrier. I personally think someone should be shot for treason if that’s the case, but to each their own.

Really, so what do the Marines, the Brits, Italians and Spanish supposed to fly in the future, as their planes are obsolete and old? I don’t think the Navy wants to continue to fly unstealthy jets, they just are waiting until the F-35 is stable, which is a good idea. They will be moving ahead soon, and I believe they have the best jet with the larger wings anyways. The F-35B has stablized, and is progressing so well the Brits went back to that plane. There is no chance the F-22 will be revived short of a war with Russia or China. The F-16 is really no longer an option either, as it under performs any future aircraft out there. No sense buying obsolete aircraft.

Well, the J-10s and J-11s and Su-35s are merely targets for steealth aircraft. Since the avionics and stealth are the real players in these planes, there is no saying how well the T-50 will work in the end. The degree of stealth on the plane has not been determined. The quality of the avionics is likely to be less than excellent if they manage to put it together in such a short period of time. While it can’t be determined for sure, it seems less than likely that that the T-50 will be able to out fight the F-22 and F-35s

Uh, you’re the guy replying…

So besides not being able to tell the difference between a CH46 vs. 47, a mediocre internet published article on the F35, a lack of maturity/character and –18 (and counting) your believing you’re in my head and that I’m ever going to discuss something worthwhile with you…

Keep digging… :)

William often confuses the real Air Force and Navy with the bunch of cover-your-ass-failure-is-normal contractors that he represents.

So your logic is “if it wasn’t flying yesterday we don’t need it”? From a historical perspective that doesn’t work too well.

Got anything new to say? Or are you just blinded by your envy of contractors who actually have jobs unlike yourself?

The Gripen NG is a promising light fighter that will of course will be pretty cheap to operate with a single F414 engine, but we need more payload than that. An upgraded F-16 would be better in the strike role. So far only the Swedish themselves have a firm commitment to the program.

How exactly is the F-35 a “white elephant?” On one hand critics point out the F-35’s supposed inadequacies to deal with 1st line air-superiority fighters and SAMs. Then, on the other hand, you argue it is gold plated and filled with stuff we don’t need. Which is it?

LCS on the other hand is a classic example of a good concept gone wrong.

William, the F-35C can’t land on a carrier. It’s had over $100 billion dollars and over a decade and it can’t land on a carrier. Think about that for a second.

Easy, it’s greatly expensive and doesn’t provide nearly the capability to performance ratio that other aircraft can bring at a fraction of the price. When you can buy another aircraft with 85% of the capability at a third of the cost something is seriously wrong.

With all that software, the F-35 could be a manned robot. Seems to me that the man in
the cockpit could limit the fighters manuverability? Debugging the software is time consuming and
risky. The US may have pushed the software configurable mantra too far.

You think they won’t manage a work around for the plane. Don’t be stupid. They will be landing on carriers just like all our other carrier fighters. Your “the sky is falling” statements are pretty poor judgment on your part. We wouldn’t have the M-1 tank, or dozens of other world class weapons if we listen to you and your kind. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Itfunk2 — Also, you can’t claim that the F-35 isn’t maneuverable, and suggest that the F-18, our current naval fighter, is somehow.

First of all sir I’m not a well known contractor troll. Unlike you though I do know what I’m talking about. My guess is that you sir are the troll here. I NEVER said the contractor wasn’t at fault I simply said that not all of the blame lies upon them. Our government has done there fair share of screwing up the program just like many other programs out there. I don’t disagree with you sir that Lockheed management is the blame for some of the faulty engineering but at the same time that same engineering was signed off by some government official assigned to the program. You sir are most likely the troll here who just wants to spout off his mouth about something he doesn’t know $hit about. You are probably just a disgrunted former Lockheed employee who lost his job for screwing up or you work for another defense contractor who has lost contracts to Lockheed.

The pilot is pretty much alnog for the ride as it is. If he puts the A/C into certain attitudes it doesn’t like, it will “auto-correct”-if you will-what the pilot did.

>The report from the GAO doesn’t jibe with the relatively glowing assessment from a paid Lockheed shill with zero credibility that was recently published in Forbes.

There fixed it for you.

Sounds like a contractor troll’s cover your ass explaination to me.

Where have a said that the F-18 is anything else but a dog. But it’s golden compared to the bovine manouverability of the F-35.

Got to love that a carrier based fighter needs a work-around to land on a carrier. Perhaps the work around is to land on land only LOL.

Question: whatever the pros and cons of the F-35 debate.…which still remains a debate, at least.…what do you-all, with your pooled expertise, think about what progress is going on for the follow-on, 7th generation weapon? Will it have the capability of carrying a pilot? Does including that capability make it so much more expensive that the F-35 will be the last generation of manned fighters? How will the transition to a hybrid manned/UAV fleet of fighter, transport, refueling and bomber fixed– and rotary-wing aircraft evolve? Are the data links secure and robust enough to support an entirely uninhabited aerial warfare capability? And how will this affect other platforms, like aircraft carriers and Marine helo carriers?

There’s a lot wrong with the F-35 program, but they’re not even in the same league of failure as the FCS program. FCS spent $20B on a program that never had any chance at all of producing a useful capability, while simultaneously creating a legacy of obsolescence in ground forces that it will take decades to undo. Cascading effects from trying to support FCS pipe dreams messed up almost any Army program you can name from about 2000 to 2008.

The problem is in our procurement system and until that is fixed, the contractor always has room to enforce cost overruns making it more expensive than their initial low ball bid. They all know that. Here is a clue. If you say you can build a plane at x dollars, then you build a plan at x dollars. We do not allow auto mechanics to do that to us when we are paying to fix our car when they gave us an estimate so why are we letting contractors do that to us when we (the taxpayers using tax dollars) are paying?

And we are still able to achieve air superiority in every conflict we have been in recently. What’s your point? These things are so flipping costly and the cost will continue to rise that the services will have to cut so many people that there will be no one left to support them in garrison or deploy with them in a war zone. You every try to launch a plane or fight a war without support personnel??

It has got to get off the ground, be able to do what it is advertised to do, and be able to sustain combat operations tempo first. It only hit 6 of the 11 testing points in 2011 alone. China will own us monetarily before we have enough of these to make a difference.

It will end up in the Smithsonian as well as a pipe dream so you will not have to travel as far ro see it.

Well if we spend our money on other aircraft that we know work but we can get 3 or 4 of them to 1 of the F-35, then we will be able to drop more overall payload (3 planes dropping versus 1) on a target for less or equal money.

True, so why do we need the pilot then?

Wrong. The only way to compare which program is the biggest failure is to compare the receipts and the results after all the actual costs are known. F-35 could still be canceled completely without any measurable contribution to national defense. If that happens the $60+B sunk, damage to industry & allies, the missed opportunity costs by not investing the sunk costs in other more reasonable programs, cascading effects you mentioned, and F-35 could very well dwarf FCS as an acquisition failure. How much government & industry talent has been sucked up by F-35 that could have made other programs, possibly even FCS, successful? There is a great moral cost here as well. Both programs have perpetuated the cultural problems of treating the taxpayers as suckers, over promising & under delivering, political engineering, and making a mockery of our governance processes.

we are still suffering from FCS, btw.

And probably the F-35 never will (not counting the bugs that end up killing our own).

OK that is funny. WIsh I could give more than 1 thumbs up.

Here’s a possible COA — scrap F-35 development and use the funds to hold a new competetion. Every competitor has 1 year to deliver their best solutions to meet the F-35 operational requirements, and 20 prototypes. The flight test community holds realistic wargames and the best jet wins. No more contractor promises and trust in math models & simulations. Following the competetion, procure an LRIP of the winning jet with no promise of follow on production unless LRIP goes well. The losing jets are all salvaged as aggressor jets for USAF/USN weapons schools. Why the heck are we using F-15 and F-16s as aggressor jets to simulate MIGs? We should use jets that we might actually fly up against in actual combat, so we can learn how to defeat them. Repeat process and develop tacair modernization through evolutionary, spiral development. Intentionally locking ourselves sole source into a 2+ decade long development & procurement cycle has got to be the definition of insanity.

That’s what I asked…

I’m not the one who technically was right and is still pursuing and replying after it was over. Face it. I got in your head. Right now you’re digging a hole that is a lot deeper than mine and only keeps getting deeper with every reply. You still haven’t gotten the hint that I want you to keep replying because it proves I still have control over you.

I supplied him a +1 for you.

Okay, I really like that idea.

Then I must have you covered.

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

I don’t look to lay blame, I look for someone to accept reality that the design is a POS.

The 6th 7th and 8th generations will all be chinese and russian, we instead will invest all our money in the f-35 for the next 60 years resulting in the collapse of the follow on programs and a laundry list of army and navy programs. Conservative estimates are that the damage to just the top 23 canceled programs will be 3 trillion dollars of costs written off.

This is lockheeds vision of the future.

to deal with the major system failures that occur on average every 15 minutes

That’s a lot of questions.
To the f-35 as being the last manned fighter AFAIK it’s pure BS designed to make people digesting insane cost.

To the rest, my vision is a vision of a manned fighter backed by IA & pilot & remote controlled drones, backed by data analysed in real-time by supercomputer. Fully automating thing like data collection may make sense in some situation, but at the end of the day we will always need to have the possibility to manually control it.

IMHO people are using the word AI on an inappropriate way. AI will be able to adapt and taking action to changing situation, but they will never be able to “think”; they will always stay a machine executing commands, but just more flexible.

For example an ai-driven aircraft with a function escape() can be able to execute it in an totally unpredictable way, but at the end of the day it will be because programmer deliberately not wanting the plane to always react the same way to the same situation, so expect a function random() applied to a limited set of possibility; that’s nothing more than a machine being able to operate in changing situation, not an “intelligent” machine.

…You’re…r’r’r’r’right.… Sum, sum, Something is… making… me.…. type.

U.… must .…. be a.… Jedi!

Seems some progress is being made.

“CF-3 performed a total of 18 successful roll-in arrestments [MK-7 (6 with risers and 4 with no risers) and E-28 (8 arrestments)] at Lakehurst from 80 to 100 knots ground speed.…”

And don’t be to surprised when the Philippines decides to go Gripen after deciding to go with NON-US fighter Aircraft. They will probably want the “Lease Deal ” like Hungary and Czech Republic. No major cash out lay, and a state of the art little fighter. I’m sure they have been talking to their neighbor Thailand which is buying their second batch of Gripens. I wonder if Canada isn’t thinking along those same lines. When was the last time Canada used war planes to attack someone? All they need is a fast ( mach 2. & Super cruise Mach 1.2 ), agile, easy to maintain fighter. Plus with ability to land and take off from an 800 meter stretch of highway or austere runway would be a huge plus for them. They have lots of small air fields through out the country. With the new

The grippen is far, far to short ranged for canadian use. We do not have plenty of airfield through the country. Most of our airport –just like our roads– are in the south of the country. Beyond the 60th parallel thing are not the same. A grippen halfway to an artic interception taking off from valcartier will meet less road and airport than you you got finger on a single hand. Actually that the case even before it pass near to the labrador.

Our climatic condition for operating an aircraft are one of the hardest in the world. A single canadian province is 3 times the size of the switzerland, yet the actual grippen range is a source of concern for them.

Grippen can be a great fighter for a small european country, but not for canada. Yes canada could make great use out of it, but a fleet only made of grippen make no sense. For the size of our country, our airforce is very, very small.

What can you expect from a guy who works at Starbucks, plays video games during the day and just wished he was involved in the aerospace industry! If the country wants to settle for a fighter force with 3rd and 4th Gen technology then so be it. But I would rather see this country expand, push those boundaries of technology and for most of the folks who comment here can only surmise what the real capabilities are for the F-35. The good stuff is classified and all you wannbes out there will never know what the jet is truly capable of doing!

You have no idea where I work. I will tell you that I am in the Navy and I have a very high stress occupation at the moment. Messing with people’s heads helps me relax in a weird way. It’s also a great stress reliever. I’m actually working towards the goal of being a fighter pilot or NFO. If by some chance I do get fighters, then I will chose the Super Hornet rather than the F-35C. Again, that’s only if I get the chance.

I’m with you in that we need to push the envelope of technology. However, I disagree at the idea of bankrupting ourselves for a push in technology that is not all that revolutionary. I also think we should not buy any new weapons until this screwed up arms contracting system gets fixed and we shouldn’t lower our test standards for aircraft as we have done with the F-35. Is the good stuff classified? That’s possible. However, it is also possible that the F-35 was built to be the best too big to fail project ever and the design was flawed or the contractors decided to take advantage of the project and milk it for as much money as it they could get from it. I think it was most likely the later.

The Gripen NG has longer legs ( 4000 km ) than the F-35 ( 2.593 km ) and the Gripen NG’s drop tanks were designed for use with Super Cruise ( Mach 1.2 ) which means it will travel farther and get there faster than the F-35 can ever hope to do.

This program is run by the most incompetent people in Aerospace. The same LM leadership continues to fall behind with no accountability for continued failure to deliver on pre-committed schedules. There is constant talk about FSL and zero presence zero delivery on making that happen. In 2012 it should not take 15 to 20 years to develop an aircraft.

The “35” is a turkey — period. Perhaps it was a necessity in 1990 but technology has been upgraded. Our military needs: 1. To be brought back from these overseas expeditions — Who didn’t know that Iran and Afghanistan were losers on day one. It costs money to fly in bullets, bread and bandages to those places. Afghanistan was a logistics nightmare for Alexander he Great, to the English and Russians and the U.S. could be different ???? There is a phrase that goes “Afghanistan was the Soviet Unions “Viet Nam”. Well, let’s call this one as it appears. Afghanistan is the U.S.‘s Viet Nam all over again. 2. the military needs ot go back to 2001 spending. We are now spending more money than every other country in the world COMBINED ! F-35 ? Hey did anyone see how these drones work ? Putting a pilot in an attack platform is 20th century. We have moved beyond that.

not always the contractor…i use to work in defense…and even though we made profits, our management was good at trying to deliver on time. working with the government is tough and almost unsensible at times. They change things at the whim, keep asking for data, data, data, and waste a lot of contractor labor with their useless demands.

I am really on the fence about this program. On one hand, I think it is viable and would be beneficial. On the other hand, I look at the money that has been spent and see that there are actually only 4 VERTOL JSF-35’s in existence and I can’t help but think that there is not enough ROI to justify that kind of outlay.

*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.