"Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster" Topic

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon's future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.

At an estimated $1 USD trillion to develop, purchase and support through 2050, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 was already the most expensive conventional weapons program ever even before Tuesday's bulletins. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are counting on buying as many as 2,500 F-35s to replace almost every tactical jet in their current inventories. More than a dozen foreign countries are lined up to acquire the stealthy, single-engine fighter as well.

In its report the GAO reserved its most dire language for the JSF's software, which agency expert Michael Sullivan said is "as complicated as anything on earth." The new jet needs nearly 10 million lines of on-board code, compared to 5 million for the older F-22 and just 1.5 million for the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet. "Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected," the GAO warned.

Software delays plus continuing mechanical and safety problems prompted JSF program chief Adm. David Venlet to back away from a firm schedule for the new fighter's frontline introduction. When the F-35 was conceived in the late 1990s, it was expected to begin flying combat missions as early as 2010. Lately military officials have mentioned 2018 as a likely start date. In his Congressional testimony, Venlet declined to even mention a possible timeframe for the JSF's service entry.

The GAO predicts the JSF's $400 USD-billion combined development and production cost will grow later this year, once the Pentagon computes a new program "baseline" — something it's already done no fewer than five times since 2001. Aside from a 400-plane reduction in 2003, the Pentagon has always opted to increase the program's budget rather than cut production numbers. That's no longer possible, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told Congress. "To the extent that there continue to be cost growth or challenges … we'll have to take down the number of aircraft," he said.

Air Combat Command, which oversees most of the Air Force's fighter squadrons, seconded Donley's view. "We cannot simply buy our way out of our problems or shortfalls as we have been able to do in the past," the command stated in a report last week.

If cuts do occur, the U.S. will be in good company. Australia, Canada and Japan have already begun backing away from the troubled JSF as the new plane has gradually exceeded their budgets. For these countries, alternatives include the Super Hornet and an upgraded F-15 from Boeing, Lockheed's new F-16V and the European Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen fighters. But so far the U.S. military prefers the F-35, even if the stealthy jet is more than a decade late, twice as expensive as originally projected and available in fewer numbers. "We will remain committed to the long-term success of the F-35 program," Air Combat Command asserted."
From
wired.com/dangerroom/page/2

What about the European fighters as the article comment?
Are they better?

Amicalement
Armand

F-35 is another one of those jack of all trade planes that can't do anything well. We need to go back to building a good fighter bomber, none of this verticle takeoff crap which makes a plane too heavy and too exspensive.
Build a naval A-10 retool the F-15 both of those planes will handle any mission for the next 15 years.

On paper better then the F-35? No. But a flying fighter today always is better than a fighter that only exists as a budget line item in terms of military effectiveness.

-Will

The problems aren't with the design or production. The real and endemic problems are in the military's acquisitions programs and bloated management.

The military needs to go back to letting contracts and having the companies that want to bid on them incur the R&D costs. It is foolish to bill the military for R&D and then the costs of the system itself.

"Are they better?"

No. The F-22 and F-35 are a state of the art combo that will guarantee air superiority over any region on the planet. However, there is a cost associated with that and that's what we're seeing here. There's nothing wrong with the plane as it is performing as advertised, but the cost overruns, continual software updating, etc., should be investigated.

There is just no way we can afford 2,500 planes. I predict a final number of around 300 to 400 each for the USAF & USN and no more than 200 for the USMC.

I've dubbed the F-35, the Coot.

A rather ugly, useless bird.

Seems someone needs to pull the trigger on the program, with a magnum load of birdshot, and put it to rest permanently.

F-22's would be cheaper, far more capable, and are a proven commodity.

For lower cost jets, bring back the A-10, F-15, and F-16. Continue with the F-18's for now, since bringing back the F-14 is probably undoable, even though it costs less, and is far more capable.

I concur on the military procurement process. The current structure is a total failure, and permits companies to run rampant with cost overruns.

They should set up a design, leave it as is (no changes permitted for the current model; subsequent upgrades are, down the road, but again, at a fixed price).

Developers need to come in on time, and on or under budget, or we buy foreign jets.

All the military procurement personnel currently involved with the F-35, need to be retired, immediately.

none of this vertical takeoff crap which makes a plane too heavy and too expensive.

I dunno. The Harrier was pretty successful in the Falklands War.

The Harrier was ok in the Falklands war, but how much better would have Phantoms flown from the Old Ark Royal been!

You fight with what you are given, but if military budgets did not always slash current before replacement equipment arrives we (in the UK in particular) would probably not had to fight a first Falklands war!

I remember everyone knocking the F-22 when the program got cancelled. As expected, the giddy expectations for a cheap F-35 are utterly dashed.

The F-35 isn't a bad idea per se. It's just that the F-22 was a proven platform, done and in production, while the F-35 was just a prototype and the gleam in a lobbyist's eye. People kept complaining that the F-22 was getting more expensive, but that's just because congress kept cutting orders, spreading the development costs over fewer and fewer planes. F-22 supporters predicted that the same would happen with the F-35, which it did, and that the plane would have unexpected delays and problems, which it has.

I think that the F-35, long-term, will be ok. These things happen. It's just silly and shortsighted that an established, successful program was cancelled in favor of some stupid paper plan.

Canceling the program is no longer politically viable. This lucrative program created too many high paying jobs for too many people in too many congressional districts for it to be cancelled. Doing so would mean political suicide to too many vested parties for it to be cancelled. Thus is the way of beltway pork barrel politics and the so-called military-industrial complex.

Yep, "TOO BIG TO FAIL", which of course I will point out, is an oxymoron.

Seems to me, the bigger something is, the more likely to fail, and/or the more reasonable to kill off.

How is a congressman going to have an aircraft carrier named after him if he votes to cancel things?

Yep, "TOO BIG TO FAIL", which of course I will point out, is an oxymoron.

I hear ya, but Uncle Sam isn't exactly Lehman Brothers or Freddie and Fannie Mac. I guess only time will tell if Big Government can suffer its own version of the 'financial meltdown' we've seen when the mortgage 'bubble' burst back in 2008 if it doesn't change its fundamental ways and rein in rampant defense spending.

How is a congressman going to have an aircraft carrier named after him if he votes to cancel things?

Exactly John. If he cancels a popular defense contract he won't get re-elected and will go down in ignominy. Ignominious congressmen don't get named after a corvette, much less a carrier ;-)

More to the point, if he kills a defense program that is employing (directly or indirectly) half the people in his district, well, he's kinda shooting himself in the foot.

The other half might well applaud those that do for not wasting their tax dollars.

One of the main drivers of these programm problems – and they are not unique to the US – is the nature of the product being bought. Military hardware has to have, by its very nature, capabilities that are not required of the nearest civilian equivalent. Hence, miltary stuff is usually 'one off'. There are very few companies that can make military aircraft/ships/vehicles so competition is almost non-existent. This, together with the 'pork barrel' effect and other factors already mentioned, means that industry has the whip hand. The current UK government 'bit the bullet' and cancelled the Nimrod MRA4 last year which means that it will have to write off at least £2.00 GBPBn of public spending – i.e. taxpayer's money – the money has been spent, the UK has got nothing in return and BAe Systems has been allowed to carry on unperturbed. It has led to plant closures and lay-offs with the expected knock-on in terms of votes likely to be lost at the next election. Accordingly, it is unlikely to do anything similar to other big and overspent equipment programmes.

Another problem is that the spec changes. This is sometimes just stupidity or getting it wrong in first place, can be that operational requirements change. Design something for war, 10-20 years later by the time the thing is production and you're fighting a different war. Plus any system you start to develop today will be completly obsolete regarding some technologies – computers, etc, – by the time it is ready. So you have to upgrade the thing even before it's in production – and that upgrade may involve physical changes to the specification, which increases costs and delays the project….

Good point Rob!.

Amicalement
Armand

Well that is a joke.

The complete air dominance argument is tenuous. Everyone else is running into the same problems we have building anything super (or at least allegedly super). Fifth-generation fighters are no longer just battling tech, they are battling cash.

Economics is the real battlefield now.

Lockheed already saw the writing on the wall which explains the F-16V with the new cockpit and AESA radar set up. You don't expend money on that if you think people are buying the F-35 in droves. Ironic that the F-16 wasn't even a Lockheed build to begin with but is/was the thing in heavy production. Then again, Lockheed was never a company who existed within budgets. Same goes for Boeing's rather opportunistic Silent Eagle as option. They aren't stupid. The corporations know that if they make too many tech improvements to the "old" bodies, no one will buy the new, ridiculously expensive, stuff. So out come somewhat "improved" models to placate a very irate Congress. Northrop must be smirking in the background somewhere watching Lockheed get raked over the coals….

They know 2,500 isn't going to happen. I think we'll be lucky to see half that number. Split amongst three services. It is almost pointless.

More as an aside, you can cancel something that is not politically viable.

You just have to have the balls to do it. But the US doesn't breed politicians who have balls, so we get stuck spending beaucoup money on projects that should have been canceled a long time ago.

I guess that is the punchline.

Question. There is / will be a non-vtol version as well isn't there?

And what's that old saying about if a plane looks right, it is right? How does the F35 look to you guys?

I'm wondering if this could speed the flight (if you'll pardon the pun) towards pilotless aircraft? Of course the industry's challenge then is to make them ever more expensive as well.

There are three versions of the F-35:

F-35A = standard version for the USAF
F-35B = VTOL version for the USMC
F-35C = carrier version for the USN

Mike

2500 birds just about *has* to happen. F18A/Bs are worn out. C/Ds are halfway there. The USMC had to buy all the UK's harriers to keep the USMC birds in the air.

There's 1000+ birds between the USN and USMC that have to be replaced (F18s and Harriers).

"Why did Johnny's airplane come apart in the sky?"

Because the airframe was older than he was, and your skinflint purchasing program forced the military to literally fly aircraft until they fall out of the sky, Congressman!

As Mike says, the USAF and USN aren't receiving the STOVL F-35B version. Only the USMC will be getting the F-35B and it HAS to have some sort of STOVL aircraft, as its ships are designed for STOVL Harrier-type flight ops and can't operate conventional carrier fast jets.

The point about the time it takes to get from drawing board to a squadron/troop/battery in-service is very well made. Military procurement is a classic case of 'time is money'. It takes a longish time to produce sophisticated military hardware and as time passes new threats/technologies emerge and put a question mark over the original design. Hence the upgrades which required re-design and, in particular, revised computer coding, all of which has to be checked and triple checked to make sure that the hardware is not going to fall out of the sky or send a shell way off target so that it hits a hospital. The cost, per line of code, of checking and verifying computer programs is breathtakingly expensive.