"What $1.4 Trillion Costs Gets You" Topic

$1.4 USD Trillion in total program costs (assuming they don't increase further in the next 50 years, or have more order cancellations from development partners), and another 2.5 – 6 years of delay in the F-35 program, until the first squadrons are operational:

link

I suspect they may not hit their deadlines, again, and that costs will swell further, despite being "only" 5.5 – 7 years late for delivery.

I mean, its only 68% over budget since 2001, so that bodes well for hitting future marks, right?

Here's a bit more info on the F-35 program:

link

Gotta love the gravy train, if you are the defense contractor(s) on the project.

I love this optimistic quote:

"Still, setting the marker known in military parlance as "initial operating capability" is a tangible signal to potential international purchasers that the program is making progress in testing."

This ugly duckling, I've nicknamed "The Coot", continues to soldier on, despite serious headwinds to the contrary.

The cutting of this program and the money spent on it could easily fix the educational systems in this country. And then maybe we could educate a new line of designers to understand things like "meeting deadlines"….

Oh wait…I'm using logic again….

Sadly, I'm afraid too much money has already been wasted on the jet, so, despite my extreme dislike for the underpowered, underarmed, overpriced, ugly duckling, I suspect we are stuck with it.

A shame we didn't just purchase a lot more of the far more capable F-22s instead of most, if not all of these.

At $220 USD mil a pop for the first 29, or so, it appears the costs are comparable, but as usual, the new jet's capabilities are far less than the more sensible option.

Of course, the F-22 can't land on carriers, or land vertically.

I suspect with a bit of rework, they could have come up with a navalized variant to address the former issue.

The STOVL capability is a bit more problematical, so it might have made more sense to come up with something else for that instead, say like the STOL Viggens Sweden used to use, or an uprated Harrier.

Ah well, it's only money, right?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if no public sector procurement projects, military or otherwise, have EVER come in on time and on budget. And yet politicians and bureaucrats still appear on our TV screens regularly promising specific deadlines and modest costs. And people still take them at their word.

Ah well, it's only money, right?

Go back to work, the government needs your taxes to pay for the F-35. Chop, chop! (But don't worry the Fed will assist by printing money out of nothing to "stimulate" the economy)

Cynical, me??!!?

Of course, the F-22 can't land on carriers, and/or land vertically.

Or consistently provide the oxygen pilots need to survive.

Or deliver much of anything air to mud.

The F-22 is actually a scarier program as it is much more established and still not fixed.

We're zero for two on fourth generation fighters and about about the only option left is to do what it took to get the F-16 to stop being a lawn dart, spend the money, fix the problems that will keep coming up and hope we don't need them in large numbers until we can get a useable UCAV.

What needs fixing way more than any program is the process which is inexcuseably inefficient and borderline corrupt. How about forbidding any serving uniformed officer from joining a defense contractor or lobbying firm for 5-10 years after leaving the service?

And I wonder how the UK MoD will spin this? After all the F-35 is supposed to replace our scrapped Harriers, fat chance of that happening on time. Perhaps the Royal Navy can train its ratings to make paper aeroplanes and launch them off our mothballed carriers.

"Take THAT, enemies of the Realm!"

I agree with you on the oxygen issue for the F-22.

Still, it has a far larger payload than the F-35, despite its other failings.

Worse, come to worst, I suspect they could just install a standard oxygen tank system in the F-22, should that be required, like is used in other aircraft.

We need more A-10s for mud moving.

Using $200 USD mil plus aircraft for that is just plane stupid (pun intended).

Alex, perhaps they should talk to the Red Bull people.

I seem to recall an annual event called FlugTag, or something like that.

Lots of low-cost, inventive designs, and no catapults required (or allowed, would be my guess).

At this point, I think it's safe to say that the F-35 is a boondoggle. Even assuming that there's no further bad news (when has that ever happened?) They're almost certain to cut the number ordered given the overall budget situation. Plus costs are spiraling and there's a temptation to but off the orders until the bird is actually functional. At that point, the per-plane costs will *really* start escalating.

The F-22, meanwhile, is a proven tool-- it's got its own problems but they're much less serious IMO. It might make sense to re-start production and keep it building new airframes at a minimal level. Perhaps by letting the Israelis and Brits get a crack at it-- just so long as SOMEONE is buying enough to keep the lines open once they're back up.

Use that as the front-line air supremacy plane, as a deterrent to Russia or China in the next war. Then much greater numbers of modernized F-16s to fight the last war by delivering ground support in uncontested airspace.

(Then later if WonderPlane ever actually meets its design criteria we can think about scaling production back up.)

F35 is underpowered?

You do realize that an F35 has more installed power in its single engine than an F4, F18C/D, or even the F18E/F have in both engines combined, right?

F4E (2x J79-GE-17A): 11,905lbs per, 17,845lbs in full AB
F18C (2x F404): 11,000lbs per, 17,750lbs in full AB
F18E (2x F414: 13,000lbs per, 22,000lbs in full AB
F35 (1x F135): 28,000lbs, 43,000 in full AB

"The F-22, meanwhile, is a proven tool-- it's got its own problems but they're much less serious IMO."

Being totally unable to operate from carriers, and being unexportable are pretty serious problems in my book :) the former is unsurmountable without a total redesign, the second is a US government ITAR issue which will not be changed. Oh and the production line has gone too.

Government procurement projects the world over are driven by politics. That is why they are usually late and over budget. The politics are not confined to politicians. In Defence departments, armed forces chiefs are just as guilty as the politicos. As for the 'people', well they vote in the politicians and they lobby for government contracts to go to their state/city etc – so even the 'people' are not blameless.

The latest issue of Combat Aircraft magazine had a news brief (and artistic impression) on the thinking for the Navy's "optionally-manned" successor to the F-35. It also hinted the Navy might even just skip the F-35, but I'm not sure if that was really based on anything or just stirring the pot.

I'm glad Canada's doing a re-think on the F-35.

I'm amazed at how little attention the F-35 gets in the American media, especially given the number of stories on balancing the budget, we see.

Even though the F-35 may end up costing well over $100 USD million per plane, and we still don't know what its operational lifecycle cost will be, it's a "game changing" weapon that must be preserved. Or so we're told.

Well, expect the average size of world air forces to shrink drastically in the number of combat airframes.

And once all the countries get their shiny new toys, I wonder if something similar to this will happen:

link

"and borderline corrupt."

Borderline ? Bwaahhaaahaa, snerk I know some people in the industry and that border was trashed decades ago <sigh>

Lion in the Stars, you're giving per engine thrusts for the the F-4E, F-18C, and F-18E. Not that it matters much, but the F-18E has more thrust at full A/B than the F-35A. I wouldn't use an ancient F-4 or a too-heavy F-18E as a baseline for comparison.

Interesting starting point on "Is it underpowered?" link
Also link

""But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia's MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe's Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35's thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.

Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. "Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1." Moreover, he noted, the F-35's half-fuel load is greater than today's fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable, despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is "a huge amount of thrust available" from the aircraft's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. "It's a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane," he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22's startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that "the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.""

The F-22 and F-35 have very different roles.

The F-22 is an Air Dominance platform designed to secure Air Superiority over a battle space, allowing less Stealthy ground attack birds to strike targets with "relative impunity" (Except SAM batteries and the like, of course).

The F-35 is Yet Another misguided attempt by the Pentagon to create a magic "wonder weapon" that can be all and do all.

Money would have been MUCH better spent building two or three separate slightly less ambitious designs aimed at specific roles. The money they spent trying to design one airframe capable of doing it all is more than it would have cost to do them individually.

It's the same thing that happened with the F-111.

You know, production delays with the Spitfire were so bad that at one point the Air Ministry considered cancelling the order and simply getting more Whirlwinds.

Sadly, I'm afraid too much money has already been wasted on the jet, so, despite my extreme dislike for the underpowered, underarmed, overpriced, ugly duckling, I suspect we are stuck with it.

I thought there was a business term for cutting losses regardless of how much was spent, can't think of it now. Along the lines of preventing good money chasing bad.

OK, I know I'm a n old fart, but I seem to remember this same argument being trotted out for all the latest air platforms over the years. I will have to do some Google searching to see what I can find…

Didn't one of the former head honchos at Lockheed write a book some years ago in which, amongst other things, he included a graph which appeared to show that by 2050 weapons would have become so expensive that even the USA would only be able to afford one – not one company or squadron, just one.

Re the grounding of SA Grippens, if we are not careful, here in the UK, there is a danger of the same thing happening to our front line equipment. Naturally, as I know only too well from personal experience, the politicians and the Generals and the bureaucrats will think up some weasel words designed to make it seem that it was all pre-planned and will greatly enhance our military capability!

@Striker – I believe you mean the "Concorde Fallacy". Also used in biology.

F35 is underpowered?

You do realize that an F35 has more installed power in its single engine than an F4, F18C/D, or even the F18E/F have in both engines combined, right?

F4E (2x J79-GE-17A): 11,905lbs per, 17,845lbs in full AB. 23,810lbs/35,960lbs total
F18C (2x F404): 11,000lbs per, 17,750lbs in full AB. 22,000lbs/35,500lbs total
F18E (2x F414): 13,000lbs per, 22,000lbs in full AB. 26,000lbs/44,000lbs total
F35 (1x F135): 28,000lbs, 43,000 in full AB

Funny, I thought others could do simple doubling.

And the F35B will have something close to 46,000lbs thrust with the liftfan running, no afterburners.

I thought there was a business term for cutting losses regardless of how much was spent, can't think of it now. Along the lines of preventing good money chasing bad.

"Sunk costs are sunk, never to be recovered" is the maxim that was beaten into my head in Accounting and Finance.

> OK, I know I'm a n old fart, but I seem to remember this same argument being trotted out for all the latest air platforms over the years

Same here. Most of which is brought about for political reasons (competition trying to give the company a bad name for the next contract bidding, those who just hate the system since it is new, those who actually have a legitimate beef, congressmen hoping to get some pork thrown their way, etc…). Last "boondoggle" I KNOW I heard about was a terrible waste of money called the M1 tank.

So why does the government Pay for R and D Up front with weapons makers?? and not just tell the companies this is what we want and have them compete for the sale with their designs and ideas. The way they do it now is like paying for a pie in the sky and hoping for Ice cream Sundays.

Sorry, should have been more clear.

Its poor top speed, single engine, inability to carry more than just a few AAMs internally, lack of agility, and the need to carry ordnance and/or fuel tanks under its wings which negates the stealth feature, etc., make it an undesireable aircraft.

Plus, I wouldn't compare the F-35 to the F-18, since the latter isn't anywhere near the top line of today's fighters (Typhoon, Gripen, F-22, Sukhois, Migs), in terms of speed or agility, either.

"Even though the F-35 may end up costing well over $100 USD USD million per plane….".

Yep, just about $220 USD mil a piece, for the first 29 they plan to produce, if you do the math.

Don't take my word for it though.

Here's an in depth analysis of the F-35's failings, compared to those of other possible, front-line opponents:

link

This RAND quote sums it up nicely (and very sadly for our front-line pilots), "the F-35 is described as "double inferior" to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as "can't [out]turn, can't [out]climb, can't [out]run."

Apparently, the aircraft's performance standards have been downrated, from being able to hold a sustained 7G turn, to a 5G turn now, making it equivalent in agility to aircraft produced 50 years ago:

"The second issue that deserves especial mention is that key aerial combat standards have been lowered, following initial tests. All F-35s will sit at 5.0g or less sustained turn performance – a figure that places them in a class with 1960s era planes like the F-5 or F-4 Phantom, instead of modern designs like the F-16".

Stealth is nice against radar, but current IRSTs can still detect and track the F-35 at long range, e.g. from 30 – 50 miles, depending upon the target's aspect.

On the plus side, the new DAS system sounds awesome, assuming it works as well as the sales people say it does. I certainly hope so.

I love how people keep blaming the Federal Governement(tm) for the inefficiencies, incompetence, and greed of the private sector and local politicians. :)

@Striker There are actually many names for that principle. The Gambler's fallacy is another. The technical term used in psychology and behavioral economics is Escalation of Commitment.

@Only Warlock: Absolutely correct. The F-22 is designed to take on serious air-to-air opposition. The F-35 is, well, a long list of somewhat conflicting requirements intended to produce a made-by-committee be-all do-all platform. It's perfectly serviceable against the kind of opponents we've been fighting lately (that is, the ones with little or no air power), but then again, the F-16 is just as good in those roles.

So even if your goal is to win the last war, rather than the next one, then the F-35 is STILL redundant at best compared to a plane that's as good or better, far cheaper, more reliable, and available today.

If your goal is to win or deter the next war, the F-35 is likely to be the turkey in the turkey shoot. And a pricey one at that. The F-22, if restarted and in wide production, is insurance against the Russians or China even bothering to try to challenge our air power.

And, yes, we have heard all these escalating cost / technical glitches arguments before, when they were used against the F-22… by many of the same people who are poo-pooing the same but stronger arguments used against the F-35 now. Remember when the F-35 was supposed to be far cheaper per-plane? Once it got off the drawing board, that turned out to be a load of carp. Just as many of us said at the time. I'm a man who enjoys his "I told you sos"

Oh, and the "we can't export it" thing. First, it's a political decision, driven in part by politicians who wanted to sandbag the F-22 program. Second, if the F-22's tech is so far superior to the F-35 that the export rules are different, then what does that say about the value of re-rolling our whole fleet to the inferior air frame? Our partners are considering dropping out precisely because it's a huge cost of a moderate if any improvement in performance.

Or if the F-35 really is better, then why not slap IT with the export controls? Or expand the rights to the F-22. I'd be happy to see Israel and Britain given the rights to buy the F-22. Perhaps some of the other F-35 partners might prefer that one as well.

The Japanese would quite literally wet themselves if they could get F22s. So would the South Koreans.

The F22 can't drop any smart-bombs. Doesn't have the capability to talk to the guidance systems.

The F35 carries the same internal payload as the A12: 2x 2000lb bombs, 2x AMRAAMs. It'd be better if someone had insisted on 2x AMRAAMs, 2x HARMs, and 2x 2000lb bombs. A stealthy airframe is much better for SEAD roles. Once the air defenses are down, then it doesn't matter what the stealth qualities of the birds are.

So where did all our really exceptional designers and go-getters go?

Where are our Kelly Johnsons, Curtisses, and Jack Northrops?

They made Aurora, and other stuff we probably aren't able to know about yet.

I'm still convinced that exists, since the retirement of the SR-71 makes little sense, otherwise.

<"And I wonder how the UK MoD will spin this? After all the F-35 is supposed to replace our scrapped Harriers, fat chance of that happening on time. Perhaps the Royal Navy can train its ratings to make paper aeroplanes and launch them off our mothballed carriers.

"Take THAT, enemies of the Realm!"">

Shh! Don't give the MoD ideas or they'll be launching ratings off the new carrier strapped to hang gliders.

Damn it all EagleSixFive, you've gone and let the cat out of the bag now.

If you strap a small prop to their backs (with a parachute above), and/or the frame of a hang glider, you can get a bit more endurance and distance out of them as well.

Add in a walkie talkie, or mobile phone to the mix, and you've got your poor man's, carrier borne "AWACS" system.

Technically…they may be more stealthy if powered by a rubberband motor.