Home  »  Military  »  F-35 Looking More Like White Elephant

F-35 Looking More Like White Elephant



Jan 13, 2011 43 Comments ›› Pat Dollard

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, has become the most expensive weapons program ever, drawing increased scrutiny at a time of tight public finances.

Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.

The so-called 5th generation fighter was built with features designed to help avoid enemy radar and ensure American supremacy in the skies for decades.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

But there is now the potential for competition from China, which this week unveiled its first radar-evading combat aircraft and fueled a sense of a military rivalry between the two powers.

At home, the Lockheed Martin F-35 is getting increased criticism even from some at the Pentagon.

[Related: India will soon fly first fighter jet built at home]

Defense officials say the original cost estimates have now doubled to make each plane’s price tag reach some 92 million dollars.

At the same time, the contract awarded in 2001 had been planned to last 10 years, but has been extended to 2016 because of testing and design issues.

Lockheed Martin, which is working with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, is developing three versions of the aircraft, which are being designed for ground attack as well as reconnaissance missions.

The F-35A is designed to replace the F-16 and A-10 of the US Air Force, while the F-35C is designed for deployment on aircraft carriers to supplant to F-18, and the F-35B would have a vertical takeoff capacity and replace Harrier aircraft.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned the cost overruns cannot continue and expressed particular concern over the short take-off and vertical landing variant.

“The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint,” he said recently.

For the short-takeoff version, Gates has ordered “the equivalent of a two-year probation,” adding that “if we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled.”

As part of a cost-saving drive, the Pentagon chief has decided to delay the purchase of 124 of the 449 units of this version until 2016.

Another bone of contention is a second engine being developed for the fighter by General Electric and Rolls Royce in case the Pratt & Whitney engine is not up to par. Gates contends this second engine is “unneeded.”

Private analysts say the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.

“The incredibly unfortunate phrase ‘too big to fail’ applies to this aircraft more than any other defense program,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group.

“It’s difficult to think of a civil or military program in the past decade that hasn’t experienced similar delays and cost overruns.”

Still, it may be hard to make many changes to the F-35 program because Britain and seven other countries have been closely involved in its development.

The United States is covering 90 percent of the cost of the development but has participation from Britain, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia.

Other nations, including Israel and Singapore, have signed contracts to buy the plane.

“The US wants a globalized JSF program for a combination of strategic and economic reasons,” said Aboulafia.

“It greatly simplifies logistics, training and doctrine for coalition warfighting. Dominating the military aerospace export business is certainly a strong draw, too. It’s as much an industrial policy as a fighter.”


  • http://hyperinflation-watch.blogspot.com/ ZenDraken

    They’ll sort it out eventually. They want one airplane to do the job of five, so it’ll just cost five times as much.

    And replace the A-10? No way.

    • Tyler520

      yes, they will sort it out – to think back, all of the aircraft (especially the A10) were shunned and deemed to be inferior until they proved themselves.

    • josephus

      Remember the Soviets used to take the same missiles and parade them around the block? They made the Pentagon think they had more missiles than they really owned?

      Wonder if the Chinese are trying to sucker into spending 100′s of billions that they will bankroll…

  • kc5tgq

    Why in the hell is Turkey part of the development. Turkey is a unreliable ally and Islamic toboot.

    • http://hyperinflation-watch.blogspot.com/ ZenDraken

      Turkey is developing the decals.

  • Phil Byler

    We should have continued to build the F-22. With the price tag on the F-35, the same thing will happen to the F-35. It will be cancelled before our aging inventory of planes is replaced.

    Also, I agree with ZenDraken, the F-35 should not be a replacement of the A-10. The Warthog may not be sleek and beautiful in the way that Mach 2 fighters are. But the A-10 is one mean, effective fighting machine.

  • http://www.snorgtees.com/media/catalog/product/i/m/imtrippingyou_fullpic_1.jpg T-Bagg

    They should have cancelled the V-22 program and redirect those funds towards something that would actually be useful, like the F-35.

    • http://www.snorgtees.com/media/catalog/product/i/m/imtrippingyou_fullpic_1.jpg T-Bagg

      ZenDraken,
      The Marine Corps has purchased weapons packages for our fleet of KC-130J’s. Meaning a plane(s) can now go from tanker/transport to tanker/transport/gunship then back to tanker/transport depending on mission needs.

      I love the Marines, we can find a way to weaponize just about anything.

    • http://patdollard.com USMC 3112

      YES WE CAN :!: Our mission requires we do more with less :!: Thanks Jackass and Gates for cutting our budget back :!: Really apprecitate it :!: :beer: :beer: :gun: :gun:

    • http://www.1913intel.com - o s g o -

      T-Bagg, the Marines will fly anything, screw the red marks in the book. When we used to fly into Iwakuni, Japan, if they didn’t have a gas cap on the upper wing (C130B’s), they still flew. If they had pea-soup in their underwear…they flew. If it meant they were always FMC…well…they were. Crews were tighter, screw the fire-extinguisher and kill Muzzies.

      Very fond memories. :beer:

  • Lock and Load

    Why the hell would you try to replace an aircraft which is perfect for its role like the A-10 with this expensive, over-engineered monstrosity :?: :roll: Can it take the damage the A-10 can? Does it have the pilot protection the A-10 has? And, it sure as hell doesn’t have the gun the A-10 has… this has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard :roll: :evil: :???:

    • j563_nyy

      The cannons are somewhat similar 25mm vs 30mm w/ an effective 3200/3900 RPM respectively. The other weapon assortment carried by the JSF is vast compared to the A-10. Don’t get me wrong I love the A-10 ,but the Lightening is a more versatile aircraft from a Stealthy/ armaments point. Costs can be reeled in once it is fine tuned and the real problem seems to be with the STOVL version the CTOL version is pretty much loved by those who have flown it.

    • Giorgi

      you dont need a stealy $130 mill close air support craft that can be taken out by a stray bullet. just how do you see an F35 doing low level strafing runs?

    • j563_nyy

      Taken out by a stray bullet? :roll: It is not Vietnam there are numerous flavors of UAV’s or KC-135 Gun Ships that can do the job too. The A10- is a great aircraft and yeah it can take plenty of ak rounds, but these people we fight these days have MANPADS that even a A10 can’t withstand a direct hit. A10 has it place but time to let future Tech evolve….

    • http://hyperinflation-watch.blogspot.com/ ZenDraken

      KC-135 Gun Ships…

      Now that’s quite a thought.

    • http://www.snorgtees.com/media/catalog/product/i/m/imtrippingyou_fullpic_1.jpg T-Bagg

      (This was supposed to go down here)

      ZenDraken,
      The Marine Corps has purchased weapons packages for our fleet of KC-130J’s. Meaning a plane(s) can now go from tanker/transport to tanker/transport/gunship then back to tanker/transport depending on mission needs.

      I love the Marines, we can find a way to weaponize just about anything.

  • Joe Mudd

    As a stand alone plane it’s one thing as a new world order of jets that’s something else.
    Good luck getting the aircraft companies to stop budget overruns they count on that before they sign the contract.
    @ T-Bagg V-22 = target or one bullet in the nacelle
    and down we go

    • indy

      Not true. 1 turbine can drive both props in an emergency.

      People are paid to think about those problems ya know, and engineers are pretty serious about their work.

  • Rich C

    Uh, maybe we could just buy the stealth fighters from the Chinese? :/

    • Tyler520

      If the pilots don’t mind a bit of lead poisoning, or the very high chance of the thing breaking like EVERY OTHER CHINESE MADE PIECE OF SHIT

  • Joe Mudd

    The A-10 is the most cost effective plane in current inventory. cheap to manufacture and easy to retrofit.

    • Tyler520

      can’t engage in air to air, though

    • http://hyperinflation-watch.blogspot.com/ ZenDraken

      You do need air superiority before you send in the A-10s.

      But I seem to remember something about an A-10 shooting down an Iraqi helicopter in Gulf War 1.0. Don’t know if that’s true, but you certainly wouldn’t want an A-10 to get a bead on you.

    • indy

      Used to be. Predator-Bs are cheaper, and they carry pretty much all of the same weapons except the anti-tank cannon obviously.

      The cannon is under consideration of being replaced by a smaller Bushmaster 25mm with considerably more ammo supply, because the Taliban doesn’t exactly have many tanks. Less boom, less rate of fire, more loiter time.

      Both are capable of packing GATR pods, which are laser guided FFAR’s… but the Predator is probably superior with those since it’s slower and far more disposable with no pilot risk… and really, the pilot & his training are one of the most expensive parts of the equation.

  • skulldog

    J563, no offense, but what weapons does the f35 carry? Once that bomb bay is opened, guess what? It ain’t stealthy anymore. It holds what? Four bombs or missiles? Overweight and underpowered, it is the Ford Pinto of the 21st Century… I will just keep my f-15 Eagle, thank-you…

    • http://www.snorgtees.com/media/catalog/product/i/m/imtrippingyou_fullpic_1.jpg T-Bagg

      skulldog,
      The weapons bays would only open long enough to physically deploy the weapons then close up again. So, by the time you get a blip on radar, the bay is closed again and the jet has disappeared and moved.

    • http://patdollard.com USMC 3112

      Hey Tea Bag, what do you want to bet that President Jackass and Socialist Lib’s have given the the Weapons Bay design over to the ChiComs for their Stealth Fighter tech that they stole from us. After all, in thier sick minds it’s not fair we have the edge on the battlefield and in the air. Why,we can’t have that. It wouldn’t be fair.

  • http://www.theamazingrhythmace.com James Hooker, Nipple Whisper

    ¨TURKEY¨ is helping us build this thing? :shock:

    • Giorgi

      no, they will build only those that will be in turkish air force.

    • Tyler520

      …and they will be made from cardboard

  • Tyler520

    The F35 program was promised to be significantly more affordable than the F22 project. Despite being inferior to the F22 all around, what the f*** happend? Are Lockheed Martin workers the GM workers of the skies?

    • Phil Byler

      You’re right, Tyler520, about getting an inferior plane for just as much money.

      As for the Lockheeed Martin people, however, they would have preferred building more F-22s. The cost problems of the F-35 come from trying to make one plane serve many roles; it may sound good in theory, but it doesn’t work so well in reality.

  • Phil Byler

    Two other opinions of mine:

    1. The notion that the same basic plane can effectively be adapted on a cost effective basis and achieve high performance for a wide variety of uses by the Air Force, Navy and Marines is a delusion. The ghost of Robert McNamara needs to be driven from the Pentagon.

    2. The notion that there are “tech” solutions that would make the A-10 obsolete is mistaken. The A-10 was not built to be an air-to-air fighter, but an air asset for ground fighting. What makes a plane a good air-to-air fighter does not necessarily work for ground support.

    • Lock and Load

      Phil, you’ve hit the nail on the head – this was more or less what I was trying to say above… this whole idea that a plane can be a jack of all trades is BS… the F-111 that AFITgrad mentions below is a fine example of how awry that process can go. Also, regarding “tech” solutions, I’ve read that the Skyraider of all things was one of the best close support aircraft in ‘Nam… slow as hell, but carried a big load and could hurt the enemy bad… sounds familiar, doesn’t it? F-4′s and other “hi-tech” jets were available, but the ‘Raiders did the job the best. Low tech solutions like the A-10 are indispensable in the US warplane inventory, for their specific purpose of ground attack and tank killing – may they live to be as old as their pilots :beer: :beer: :beer:

  • ji

    I used to know an engineer who worked for Lockheed on the 3rd shift.
    He said there were five of them assigned to fix a technical problem, he was just hired.
    He was told it was a problem they had been working on for a year.
    He said he was told to go to sleep until morning like the rest of them, while on the job.
    He said he couldnt sleep, so he solved the problem in a couple of hours.
    In the morning he told his supervisor he had solved the problem and was promptly fired.

  • skulldog

    yes, Tbag, I understand that the cross-section signature of the aircraft is larger when the bomb bay doors open, but what about the r.a.m. coating mud that is applied around all of the doors? When the doors are opened for the first time, that coating is broken up, and then the aircraft is exposed. but perhaps I am saying too much already…my bad..

  • AFITgrad86

    Why is the A-10 a great aircraft? Maybe it’s in the Republic DNA that spawned it .. like it’s grandpa the P-47 and its father the F-105. Strong reliable and capable of bringing you home even with a shot up aircraft. It probably didn’t hurt to have an adviser named Gabby Gabreski on the team either ….

    The F-15 and F-16 were controversial during their development and initial production. I recall phrases like ‘not a pound for air to ground’ for the F-15 (which some wanted to be a multi-role fighter — a notion soundly opposed by the AF leadership. I also recall the opposition to the F-16′s fly-by-wire system and people who scoffed it was the ‘electric lawn dart’. Both aircraft have gone on to prove their critics wrong.

    The F-15 came into service in 1975. 35 years is a long time for an aircraft to be on the forefront of our defense … unless your talking about the evergreen B-52 which is almost as old as I am :smile:

    You would have thought we learned our lesson with the F-111 an aircraft that never really was either fish nor fowl. The lesson learned from that debacle is an elephant is a horse designed by committee! If you want an air-to-air superiority aircraft then make it a single purpose design as was the F-15. As good as the F-16 is, it never had (nor will have) the F-15′s capability as a pure kick-ass beyond visual range or up close and personal dog fighter.

    Of course that’s just my opinion … I could be wrong. But 23 years in a blue suit gave me some pretty good insights.

    • skulldog

      AFITGRAD86, If you think the f-15E was something, you should see all the bells and whistles on the new K model and SG model f15. It is a whole new ball game with the aesa radar, jhmcs, and other platforms…the plane basically looks the same as a E model, but in reality, they are nothing alike. And now, perhaps the new Saudi model, it will be fly-by-wire hydraulics, and the conformals will house aim-9 missiles!! First stike, indeed!! I can’t wait for the first one to come out of final assembly to the flight ramp, where I build em’….

    • http://www.1913intel.com - o s g o -

      The Israeli version is even stealthier, the ‘I’ model…I’d still pit an older model with an experienced, trained pilot over a newer version piloted by someone who just mastered the T-37….and who’s a pilot because his 5th cousin thrice removed runs the Air Ministry. :smile:

  • Egfrow

    Government is always a fan of one size fits all theory of developing a platform. It never really works out. It usually does allot more very poorly.

  • Hawkerdriver(PissontheKoran)

    Im a fan of the A-10.And the ’15 too. We can hangar fly all day about this guys,but the sinister thing behind this is the squandering of money by politicians and lobbyists for self gains,NOT for air superiority.It makes what they say about the F35 just more hot air.

    Never forget,there is now a ruling class in DC and unfortunately the Pentagon who are in lockstep with Chairman Maobama to puposefuly give our world dominance away at all costs.They will break the bank one way or another at any cost.”Equality among nations” means America is to be left vulnerable in all ways to the BoyKing.He is on a payback mission,and that’s all.

    The next fight on our soil will be down and dirty,with close air support turning the tide.ICBMS and the Shield should have been all the deterrent we ever needed to keep the little red men away..but I think we will fight them someday here.So-we need to keep weapons platforms like the A-10 alive with upgrades for as long as possible,because the F-35 probably wont be able to function with the grid down from an EMP.But I bet a Warthog could be cranked and Targets of Oportunity could be found the old fashioned way…jus sayin..

  • lastconservativeblackmanonearth

    Well, I’m here to tell ‘yall, the future of military aviation is the pilotless drone. Now, before some of you cut me -n- fuk me, read some of the strategic plans and projections coming out of the Air Force.

    Furthermore, the political spine of the electorate is now virtually non-existent. The primary purpose of a nation’s military is to send in the warriors and break what it can’t take. This means the likelyhood of sendin’ our boys deep into enemy territory under this kind of warplan is just about zero.

  • 1screaminEagle

    IOH It is about time they arm Tankers as they are usually loitering in the AO for CAS and while our fast mover may not always be on station these tankers Are.