• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

F-35; Is it worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saw this in my google feed and thought I'd share. Shoot down if old. Found the video interesting. I knew the F-35 was overbudget and was a boondoggle, but I'm pretty surprised it's this bad. It feels like we're building weapons to fight the cold war. We were doing the same with the Abrahms M1 tank, where the military said they didn't need and Congress was like "YES YOU DO".

The craziest part is that Lockheed seems to be fucking up and nothing has really happened to them at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/

The following script is from "The F-35" which aired on Feb. 16, 2014, and was rebroadcast on June 1, 2014. David Martin is the correspondent. Mary Walsh, producer.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon's newest warplane and its most expensive weapons system ever, nearly $400 billion to buy 2,400 aircraft. To put that in perspective -- that's about twice as much as it cost to put a man on the moon. This, at a time when cuts in defense spending are forcing the Pentagon to shrink the size of the military.

60 Minutes Overtime
Can the U.S. military's new jet fighter be hacked?
As we reported in February, the Air Force, Navy and Marines are all counting on the F-35 to replace the war planes they're flying today. If it performs as advertised, the F-35 will enable U.S. pilots to control the skies in any future conflict against the likes of China or Russia. But the F-35 has not performed as advertised. It's seven years behind schedule and $163 billion over budget, or as the man in charge of the F-35 told us, "basically the program ran itself off the rails."

[Chris Bogdan: Good morning.]

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan is the man in charge of the F-35 and every morning starts with problems that have to be dealt with ASAP. This morning it's a valve that's been installed backwards and has to be replaced.

Chris Bogdan: How long does it take?

Answer: It's about a seven day operation.

Chris Bogdan: OK. And now you know what I'm going to say next.

Answer: Yes sir.

Chris Bogdan: What am I going to say next?

Answer: You're going to say, "We're not going to pay for it."

Chris Bogdan: That's right. We're not going to pay for it.

Chris Bogdan: Long gone is the time where we will continue to pay for mistake after mistake after mistake.

When Bogdan took over the F-35 program a year and half ago, it was behind schedule, over budget and relations with the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, bordered on dysfunctional.

David Martin: How would you characterize the relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin?

Chris Bogdan: I'm on record after being in the job for only a month standing up and saying it was the worst relationship I had seen in my acquisition career.

ws-lt-gen-chris-bodgen.jpg
Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan
CBS News
These planes coming off the Lockheed Martin assembly line in Fort Worth cost $115 million a piece, a price tag Bogdan has to drastically reduce if the Pentagon can ever afford to buy the 2,400 planes it wants.

Chris Bogdan: I know where every single airplane in the production line is on any given day. You know why that's important? Because Lockheed Martin doesn't get paid their profit unless each and every airplane meets each station on time with the right quality.

David Martin: So if this plane doesn't get from that station to this station--

Chris Bogdan: On time with the right quality they're going to lose some of their fee. You've got to perform to make your profit.

David Martin: They must love you at Lockheed Martin.

Chris Bogdan: I try and be fair, David and if they want what I call "winner's profit," they have to act like and perform like winners, and that's fair.

Although the F-35 won't begin to enter service until next year at the earliest, pilots are already conducting test flights and training missions at bases in California, Florida, Maryland, Arizona and Nevada. It's supposed to replace virtually all of the jet fighters in the United States military. There's one model for the Air Force, another for the Navy -- designed to catapult off an aircraft carrier -- and a third for the Marines which seems to defy gravity by coming to a dead stop in midair and landing on a dime.

David Berke: This is a fighter that has amazing capabilities in a lot of ways.

60 Minutes: Segment Extras
The F-35's vertical landing
Lt. Col. David Berke says there's no comparison between the F-35 and today's jet fighters.

David Berke: I'm telling you, having flown those other airplanes it's not even close at how good this airplane is and what this airplane will do for us.

David Martin: We have planes that are as fast as this.

David Berke: You bet.

David Martin: And can maneuver just as sharply as this one.

David Berke: Sure.

David Martin: So why isn't that good enough?

David Berke: Those are metrics of a bygone era. Those are ways to validate or value an airplane that just don't apply anymore.

f35-climbing.jpg
You can see from its angled lines, the F-35 is a stealth aircraft designed to evade enemy radars. What you can't see is the 24 million lines of software code which turn it into a flying computer. That's what makes this plane such a big deal.

David Berke: The biggest big deal is the information this airplane gathers and processes and gives to me as the pilot. It's very difficult to overstate how significant of an advancement this airplane is over anything that's flying right now.

Without the F-35, says Air Force Chief General Mark Welsh, the U.S. could lose its ability to control the air in future conflicts.

Mark Welsh: Air superiority is not a given, David. It never has been. And if we can't provide it everything we do on the ground and at sea will have to change.
"It's very difficult to overstate how significant of an advancement this airplane is over anything that's flying right now."

Today's enemies, al Qaeda and the Taliban, pose no threat to American jets. But Welsh is worried about more powerful rivals.

Mark Welsh: We're not the only ones who understand that going to this next generation of capability in a fighter aircraft is critical to survive in the future of battle space and so others are going, notably now the Chinese, the Russians, and we'll see more of that in the future.

And this is what the competition looks like -- the Russian T-50 and China's J-20 Stealth Fighter. According to Welsh, they are more than a match for today's fighters.

Mark Welsh: If you take any older fighter like our existing aircraft and you put it nose to nose in, in a contested environment with a newer fighter, it will die.

David Martin: And it will die because?

Mark Welsh: It will die before it even knows it's even in a fight.

In aerial combat, the plane that shoots first wins, so it all comes down to detecting the enemy before he detects you. The F-35's combination of information technology and stealth would give American pilots what Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle describes as an astounding advantage in combat.

Robert Schmidle: I shouldn't get into the exact ranges because those ranges are classified, but what I can tell you is that the range at which you can detect the enemy as opposed to when he can detect you can be as much as 10 times further when you'll see him before he'll ever see you and down to five times...

David Martin: I want to nail that down here. If the F-35 was going up against another stealth aircraft of the kind that other countries are working on today, it would be able still to detect that aircraft at five to 10 times the range?

Robert Schmidle: You would be safe in assuming that you could detect that airplane at considerably longer distances than that airplane could detect you.

The F-35's radars, cameras and antennas would scan for 360 degrees around the plane searching for threats and projecting, for example, the altitude and speed of an enemy aircraft, onto the visor of a helmet custom-fitted to each pilot's head.

It is so top-secret no one without a security clearance has ever been allowed to see what it can do...

[Alan Norman: If you want to head up to my office, come on up.]

...until Lockheed Martin's chief F-35 test pilot Alan Norman took us into the cockpit for a first-hand look.

Alan Norman: So, if you put that over your face . . .

That blindfold is to make sure I can see only what cameras located in different parts of the plane project onto the visor.

Alan Norman: You're looking through the eyeballs of airplane right now. And you can even look down below the airplane. So you're looking actually through the structure of the airplane right now.

We've positioned 60 Minutes cameraman Tom Rapier underneath the plane so we can test the system.

David Martin: So now I look and there's Tom Rapier and he's giving me one finger up.

Alan Norman: You're the only person in the world that can see him with that imagery right now.

We're not allowed to show you what's on the visor because much of it is still classified. But wherever I turn my head, I can see what's out there.

Chris Bogdan: So there's a lot riding on that helmet, David, there's no doubt.

David Martin: How much does it cost?

Chris Bogdan: The helmet itself plus the computer system that is used to make the helmet work is more than a half million dollars.

But there have been problems with the helmet and when we visited the Marine Corps station in Yuma, Ariz., a malfunction caused a scheduled flight to be scrubbed.

In fact, on any given day more than half the F-35s on the flight line are liable to be down for maintenance or repairs.

Bugs and glitches in the plane first reveal themselves in testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California where every test flight is monitored and recorded as if it were a space flight.

The plane has to go through 56,000 separate tests -- everything from making sure a bomb will fall out of the bomb bay to seeing what happens when it is dropped at supersonic speeds.

[Rod Cregier: Of course you never like to lose an aircraft.]

Col. Rod Cregier runs the test program.

Rod Cregier: You're taking an aircraft that's unknown and you're trying to determine does it do what we paid the contractor to make it do. Does it go to the altitudes, the air speeds? Can it drop the right weapons? We're trying to get all that stuff done before we release it for the war fighter, so that they can actually use it in combat.

David Martin: So are you basically the guy who has to deliver the bad news about the plane?

Rod Cregier: Sometimes it's hard to tell folks that their baby is ugly, but you have to do it because if you don't get it done, who else is gonna do it?

More at the link as well as a video.
 

Drensch

Member
The us military is the largest welfare program going. That's what keeps the F35 alive. Spending that money doing something useful would get the welfare label.
 
Nope. I watched that news segment and IIRC, the F-35 is $160 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule.

I was also surprised that our government bought the aircraft before testing it beforehand.

Just like the F-22 Raptor, I don't know why our government continues spending money on air superiority fighters that are barely used.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
We ask the army to go fight in needless wars, then treat them like shit with inadequate healthcare when they get home. Yet we spend 400B on a fucking fighter plane for the worthless airforce, when very soon we won't even need pilots at all for anything.
 
Nope. I watched that news segment and IIRC, the F-35 is $160 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule.

I was also surprised that our government bought the aircraft before testing it beforehand.

Just like the F-22 Raptor, I don't know why our government continues spending money on air superiority fighters when they are barely used.

The Boy Scouts have a motto: "Always be prepared."

It's kind of a bad time to be designing and building air superiority fighters after you realize you need them.
 

Azulsky

Member
I find the argument from traditional airplane designers that the control surface area to weight ratio on this plan is very low being a problem pretty compelling.

This does make it seem lacking compared to the F22 or F15 which have large control surfaces for maneuvering and not dropping like a brick upon engine failure.

From an engineering principle re-usability of the design for all services seems nice but the compromise of its function seems to have gone too far. I think truer elegance comes from something that does 1 thing exceptionally.

The engineering costs bloat is ridiculous for new aircraft when what we really need to make are just new versions of old proven workhorses like the C130 and A10.

All of these really matters for nothing when Drones are going to take over anyway.
 
We ask the army to go fight in needless wars, then treat them like shit with inadequate healthcare when they get home. Yet we spend 400B on a fucking fighter plane for the worthless airforce, when very soon we won't even need pilots at all for anything.

Exactly. I appreciate the benefits I received from the GI Bill, but it doesn't make sense how we treat returning veterans from war or veterans in general.

It's sad to say it's better to have private insurance than go through the fuckup that is the VA healthcare.
 

Enron

Banned
For the broader question of whether it's worth it to continue spending money developing/building air superiority fighters, the answer is yes.

Because our potential rivals sure as hell are.
 

Deitus

Member
I was also surprised that our government bought the aircraft before testing it beforehand.

I don't really understand what you mean. The government is paying for the aircraft to be designed and built (and yes, tested). How could they have tested it before it was actually made?

Just like the F-22 Raptor, I don't know why our government continues spending money on air superiority fighters that are barely used.

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter, it's a multi-role fighter, that will probably spend most of it's time in air to ground combat.

F-22 is in many ways a relic of the cold war. The program started during the cold war, and when that ended, no one wanted to immediately can the program and waste all of the money already funneled into it.
 
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon's newest warplane and its most expensive weapons system ever, nearly $400 billion to buy 2,400 aircraft. To put that in perspective -- that's about twice as much as it cost to put a man on the moon.

But the F-35 has not performed as advertised. It's seven years behind schedule and $163 billion over budget, or as the man in charge of the F-35 told us, "basically the program ran itself off the rails."

friday1ky.jpg
 

Starviper

Member
They really need more competition in this "market".. Crazy to think we've spent so much on a plane that has so many reports stating that it isn't performing as expected or has problems. This is what we end up with when it's just 2-3 different companies competiting for government contracts, and the other choices aren't viable choices at all.
 
I don't really understand what you mean. The government is paying for the aircraft to be designed and built (and yes, tested). How could they have tested it before it was actually made?

From the transcript:

Frank Kendall: An old adage in the, in this business is, "You should fly before you buy." Make sure the design is stable and things work before you actually go into production.

Frank Kendall is the under secretary of Defense for Acquisition - the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer.

Frank Kendall: We started buying airplanes a good year before we started flight tests.

David Martin: So you buy before you fly?

Frank Kendall: In that case yes.

David Martin: Just saying, it doesn't sound like a good idea.

Frank Kendall: I referred to that decision as acquisition malpractice.
 

xenist

Member
The F-35 is the military equivalent of asking a little kid to imagine his ideal superhero. "He will have super-strength, and super-speed, and invulnerability, and flight, and swords, and laser eyes, and magic, and invisibility..." Of course the result would be an over-engineered, ridiculously expensive, late, semi-mythical beast. It only had to be best of kind in air superiority, cas, attack, and dog-fighting, but also it to be STOVL, VTOL, hypersonic, carrier based and stealthy.
 
It's late and drastically overbudget; I'm not sure replacing it with another program would be cost effective at this stage however. It is at least going to be a very capable aircraft filled with cutting edge technology.

Do F-22s even get that much use?

The F22 is an Air Superiority fighter that entered service in like 2005 and is very expensive to fly. I'll let you answer your own question now. The F35 is a strike fighter so at least it will have some utility in these low intensity conflicts.
 
This plane is a complete mess because they made it a jack of all trades instead of a specialist, so it's expensive and underperforming. The F-22 had problems but at least it was at the top of its class in air superiority.
 

Nivash

Member
Worth it or not worth it, it's awfully late to pull the plug now or all that money already spent on the aircraft would be thrown away. Besides, the USAF actually does need a new fighter. Need I remind you that the F-16, which the F-35 is supposed to replace, is actually a 40 year old aircraft?

First off a disclaimer - I'm not American. I'm actually Swedish so I have a natural bias for the Saab Gripen which is a competitor to the F-35. I'm not a big fan of the F-35 either way - for most countries it's excessively expensive to both buy and maintain, especially since few actually need 5th gen aircraft.

Even so I think it would be incredibly foolish of the US to pull the plug on the F-35 because it leaves you with three options: either start another expensive tender that will likely take 10-15 years, restart the production line for the F-22 which is even more expensive and poorly suited for anything but air superiority or drop the F-35 without a replacement tender for the F-16 which is absolutely insane - doing that is essentially turning the USAF into a second rate air force and forfeiting the air power game entirely to Russia, China and anyone else who buys Russian or Chinese 5th gen aircraft after 2020-2025 at the latest.

So unless you'd like to dissolve NATO and become isolationist again, you guys are stuck with the F-35 for now. Don't feel too bad - it's a perfectly capable aircraft. You, along with the rest of the partners, are just going to have to pay more than expected for them.

EDIT: Oh, and as for "limited usability" - you're not thinking every conflict from hereon out is going to be like Afghanistan, right? Unless you haven't noticed, Russia and China have begun to flex their muscles quite a bit lately. The post-cold war lull is over. Hell, the one with Russia is practically back on now that even cooperation around GPS and the ISS have been put on the line. If you want the US Military to remain a credible deterrent that means they need 5th gen fighters and the F-35 is your only choice right now.
 
We ask the army to go fight in needless wars, then treat them like shit with inadequate healthcare when they get home. Yet we spend 400B on a fucking fighter plane for the worthless airforce, when very soon we won't even need pilots at all for anything.

I'm going to go crazy here and suggest that the air force is maybe not /entirely/ useless.

That said, would have been cool to see what happened if they threw that $400,000,000,000 at NASA instead.
 
The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter, it's a multi-role fighter, that will probably spend most of it's time in air to ground combat.

F-22 is in many ways a relic of the cold war. The program started during the cold war, and when that ended, no one wanted to immediately can the program and waste all of the money already funneled into it.

Lt. General Schmidle made it seem like it's another air superiority fighter:

In aerial combat, the plane that shoots first wins, so it all comes down to detecting the enemy before he detects you. The F-35's combination of information technology and stealth would give American pilots what Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle describes as an astounding advantage in combat.

Robert Schmidle: I shouldn't get into the exact ranges because those ranges are classified, but what I can tell you is that the range at which you can detect the enemy as opposed to when he can detect you can be as much as 10 times further when you'll see him before he'll ever see you and down to five times...

David Martin: I want to nail that down here. If the F-35 was going up against another stealth aircraft of the kind that other countries are working on today, it would be able still to detect that aircraft at five to 10 times the range?

Robert Schmidle: You would be safe in assuming that you could detect that airplane at considerably longer distances than that airplane could detect you.

The F-35's radars, cameras and antennas would scan for 360 degrees around the plane searching for threats and projecting, for example, the altitude and speed of an enemy aircraft, onto the visor of a helmet custom-fitted to each pilot's head.
 

Kahoona

Member
It's late, over-budget, ....and will never be canceled. So many companies are invested in it that canceling the thing would put a lot of those companies under.
 

werks

Banned
I don't have a problem with the air force buying the F-35 to ensure air superiority as long as they do it within their budget without cutting into what the army and marines need from them.

I have a huge issue with the airforce trying to retire the A-10 fleet and trying to replace it with fast movers. Bring back the Army Air Corps and give us your "useless", old and not sexy a-10s, c130 and c17. We will go fight and win wars without the fucking airforce and they can keep the prima donnas flying their sexy jets.

Fuck the airforce, they are not a service and only exist to serve themselves.
 
Do F-22s even get that much use?
unless we go to war with a major country like China, Russia, etc in the next 10 years.
No there are only 187 of them and they won't be risked in small scale conflicts that might happen.

Its the best fighter in the world currently but the low amount and high cost make it too valuable when the alternatives at the moment(F-15) are still good enough for the average job.
 

Darkangel

Member
Jack of all trades, master of none. Delays, performance problems, and an ever expanding budget have made the F-35 the military shit storm of the 21st century. As a Canadian I'm pretty pissed off that we're basically locked into this thing until the very end. With the current cost estimates it seems like the government might only be able to order around 60 of these new fighters. That's nowhere near enough to secure a country the size of Canada, not to mention the fact that the single engine design isn't fitted for arctic operations.

Canada isn't going to be fighting a full on war anytime soon, and pretty much only uses its fighter jets for border patrol and bombing third world armies. I actually think the government might be better off buying the new F-15 Silent Eagle over the F-35.

At least it's not as much of a screw job as the F-22, right?

Unlike the F-35, the F-22 is actually a fantastic aircraft.
 

Figgles

Member
They really need more competition in this "market".. Crazy to think we've spent so much on a plane that has so many reports stating that it isn't performing as expected or has problems. This is what we end up with when it's just 2-3 different companies competiting for government contracts, and the other choices aren't viable choices at all.

The problem is, who else besides Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing could design and produce these aircraft in the quantity needed?

Hell, they can't even do it.
 
It cost $2 Billion to put a autonomous car sized rover on Mars for science that will shape the survival of mankind in the future. Here we're spending money on stuff that is 80 martian car sized rovers over budget! Oh and the martian rover was only 2 years behind schedule!

Edit:
I should admit that I still see value in developing the latest and greatest air superiority technology. Wars with large nations can't be fought with F-15s and F-16s like they use to. But I have a feeling there would be a much more emphasis on cyber warfare more than aerial warfare.
 

Nivash

Member
The problem is, who else besides Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing could design and produce these aircraft in the quantity needed?

Hell, they can't even do it.

It's surprising you even have three. Can't even think of any other country that has more than one nationalized manufacturer, except for Russia that has Mikoyan and Suikhoi. It's kinda hard to sustain that many players in an industry that only get a shot every 15-20 years or so when it comes to fighters.
 

Deitus

Member
Lt. General Schmidle made it seem like it's another air superiority fighter:

I'm not saying it's not capable in air to air combat, because it clearly is. But from the start of the JSF program, it was not intended to serve as an air superiority fighter. The F-35 was always meant to compliment the F-22, with the 35 filling a multi-role capacity, and the 22 being the air superiority fighter. This is similar to the relationship between the F-16 (multi-role) and the F-15 (air superiority) today. But since both of those aircraft are 40 years old, they need replacements.

While the F-35 has an impressive sensor suite and is quite capable in beyond visual range engagements, the F-22 is faster, more agile, and more stealthy, and was actually designed from the ground up for air superiority.
 

jstripes

Banned
Isn't this the fucking plane Stephen Harper wanted to force on the Canadian Air Force when we already had a contract for one that was better/cheaper/ready?
 

Branduil

Member
The F-35 is the military equivalent of asking a little kid to imagine his ideal superhero. "He will have super-strength, and super-speed, and invulnerability, and flight, and swords, and laser eyes, and magic, and invisibility..." Of course the result would be an over-engineered, ridiculously expensive, late, semi-mythical beast. It only had to be best of kind in air superiority, cas, attack, and dog-fighting, but also it to be STOVL, VTOL, hypersonic, carrier based and stealthy.

It's the Homer of fighter jets.
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
welp the whole point of the F-35 was to be cheaper than all these different planes and branches with different roles. I had no idea it was basically still sitting around. Guess the military should've picked at least one back up plane to fill another role like air to air dominance, or attack plane , i was under the assumption the F-35 was going to replace and fill all these roles .
 
welp the whole point of the F-35 was to be cheaper than all these different planes and branches with different roles. I had no idea it was basically still sitting around. Guess the military should've picked at least one back up plane to fill another role like air to air dominance, or attack plane , i was under the assumption the F-35 was going to replace and fill all these roles .

They already have the F22 for air superiority, which it will be keeping around for decades. The A10 still has a bit of service live in it for CAS, a role which is becoming increasingly drone based anyway. The Super Hornet is still doing ok for carrier based aircraft. The F35 will only shine against technologically sophisticated adversaries, otherwise there is no difference between a bomb dropped by an F35 or a bomb dropped by anything else.

The F35 was supposed to be cheaper than the F22, which it is not ending up being. It was not supposed to be cheaper than other aircraft necessarily, although they thought they would be saving money by having one program instead of 3 separate programs - which it may well be, because those aircraft would have had extremely high requirements too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom