When historians look back on the F-35 program and wonder how did the Pentagon allow itself to get hoodwinked ... again ... its gonna make some fascinating reading.
But for the early critics...the Sweetman, Goon, Kopp, Palmers etc...they're going to have to look themselves in the mirror and kick themselves hard for focusing on tech---instead of costs.
We can't get the ACV and/or MPC done because the F-35 and MV-22 are raping the Marine Corps budget. Its so bad that now the F-35 program is killing off the Ground Combat Vehicle for the Army, endangering the AMPV, the JLTV, killing off USAF squadrons, and even causing deeper personnel cuts than is advisable.
All because leadership is being sold the idea that airpower can finally deliver on the promise of winning wars by itself...or that airpower and SOCOM can keep the bad guys at bay.
But I guess better late than never.
The cost of the airplane is FINALLY getting airtime. The Navy's strategy is FINALLY becoming obvious.
But it might be too late. Leadership failed us again on this issue. The battle should have been about cost, not tech...and thats where the war might have been lost.
Read about the cost battle over at Aviation Week here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt should be both. For example, if there is no working, credible, F-35 in any near-future scenario, it is not worth buying. Also, any low rate initial production (LRIP) buys up to this point have been illegal. Simply because there is no Milestone C in place. Price.... Tech..... and Criminal actions.
ReplyDeletedon't get me wrong Eric. its just that looking back at my "awakening" and what it took to finally jump off the F-35 bandwagon was the price that my service in particular was having to pay to get this turkey across the finish line.
Deletei'm not pointing any fingers at all ... i should have known better but believed the lies.
i'm just saying that early on in this process we all should have focused on how much this bastard was costing.
if we had focused like a laser on price early on, then we could have killed this thing in its crib. now its growing into a monster that will kill us instead.
Delivery to Israeli Airforce( in the US training camp, not to Israel) is delayed from 2015 to an undetermined date due to all the ongoing F-35 technical problems.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.algemeiner.com/2014/01/24/report-technical-malfunctions-delaying-israel-air-forces-use-of-new-f-35-fighter-jet/
While I am not an Israel supporter, I do worry for the future of Israeli Airforce. The current US military aid pays for upto 75 F-35s over decades, and IAF has hundreds of F-15s and F-16s to replace. Israeli can neither build its own fighter jet nor buy cheap US fighter jets that don't exist(Unless there is a fighter version of the T-X winner), Scaling back the IAF tactical air fleet to 75 F-35s is not an option for Israel surrounded by hostile Arab countries and Iran, so what will they do now?
DeleteWell, with the news the other day the block 3B software is pushing Marine IOC to 2016?, not really sure why the Israelis are in any hurry to get their hands on it.
ReplyDeleteIf the stupid thing AT LEAST worked, it could be worth it but between the actual cost plus the damage it is doing for the foreseeable years to the rest of the force, it's a price to steep to pay.
Let's not forget there is still a lot of stuff to test, like actually landing on a carrier, weapons testing, helmet issues, we also haven't seen it deploy for REAL, not some simulated crap....
NICO
DeleteIsraelis need the F-35 to be able to carry out surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Yeah, I know that, thank you. *sarcasm*
DeleteThat's not going to happen anytime soon with the software that's coming with F35 block whatever.....
The whole point of the JSF was to provide near-F-22 levels of technology and performance for F-16 prices. It makes sense in a way, the F-16 can do most of a F-15's job at a fraction of the cost, thanks to a smaller, lighter design and huge economies of scale.
ReplyDeleteBut the powers that be got greedy. It wasn't enough to replace the F-16 and F-18 with a single airframe. They had to replace the Harrier too. Building a STOVL isn't easy. Most STOVL concepts don't leave the drawing board, and those that do, like the V-22, end up breaking the bank. Forcing a STOVL variant on the JSF made it needlessly more complicated, since you can't simply make a jump jet out a traditional design.
The winner-take-all aspect of the JSF competition was the second mistake. Once won, there was nothing keeping LockMart from bleeding all funding dry. They knew that the F-35 was going to be too big to fail.
It speaks volumes that, for a platform that was originally intended to be "affordable", the F-35 uses almost no off-the-shelf systems. Even its engine needed to be thoroughly modified from its original F-22 specs.
Like Jurassic Park, they "spared no expense", now people wonder how the T-Rex got out of its cage.
Plus Lockheed owns all the taxpayer-funded development tech data rights which means they own the whole program forever -- procurement, operations and support.
Deletefrom LM powerpoint, MOU to Canada
Notice to U.S. Government
Access to this printed document or electronic file does not constitute delivery of the data to the U.S. Government as contemplated under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or DoD FAR Supplement (DFARS). By proceeding to view the data contained herein, you acknowledge that the data is confidential and contains trade secrets and/or privileged information of Lockheed Martin or its subcontractors and suppliers.
So without competition, continuing high prices (and LM profits) are guaranteed. Guar-an-teed.
Last month:
Lt. Gen. Christopher Bodgan said that "little attention was paid to the F-35 data rights ownership issues until about 18 months ago and it is a high priority issue today." The "Pentagon and its lawyers are working with the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] program's main industry participants to sort out data rights ownership questions, many of which remain unresolved."
They're screwed.
SAy this on Eric's blog: "All the work put into 2B software for the F-35 program and this is what the chief DOD tester told Congress back in July of 2013:
ReplyDelete"If Block 2B F-35 forces are used in combat, they would likely need significant support from other fourth-generation and fifth-generation combat systems to counter modern, existing threats, unless air superiority is somehow otherwise assured and the threat is cooperative.""
WTF?!?! 4th Gen support?!? haven't we heard for years from all that pro JSF crowd that 4th Gen was obsolete and too vulnerable! That just pisses me off!!!!
It's always been about cost - the premise of the program was to save money by combing widely disparate operational needs into one basic system. Our hubris fooled us into believing that we could engineer superior performance at a discount. What we will get is adequate performance at a premium.
ReplyDeleteA major development.
ReplyDeleteJapan and Britain agreed to develop AESA version of Meteor missile and integrate it for use in their own respective F-35s. This new version of Meteor combines Japanese AESA seeker(Japan invented AESA and produced the world's first AESA seeker A2A missile, the AAM-4) with the Meteor's ducted rocket to produce the deadliest and virtually jamming-proof A2A missile in existence today.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/25/business/f-35-missile-work-eyed-with-britain/
is the Meteor even flying yet?
DeleteLast I hear, it was still in the flying mock-up stage
Two things Sol: first is that Sweetman/GAO/et al did talk about cost. F-35 zealots used their plan A, deny deny deny, and focus on technical minutiae to divert the conversation away. If you look back over the arguments you'll see a gradual shift away from discussing cost towards talking about individual aircraft capability regardless of cost in the pro-F35 camp.
ReplyDeleteSecond thing is that it is a common mistake to think that low cost was ever an F-35 program objective. The direct ancestor of JSF was a high end program. When you look at the program history carefully, just examining data instead of looking at the F-35 PowerPoint's, you'll see that the program is an ATF do over, i.e it is another F-15 replacement, not an F-16 an replacement.
That makes sense... When F-22 production was cut, Lockheed likely lost out on billions of dollars in sales and even more in long-term maintenance contracts.
DeleteWhat better way to compensate for that than by gold plating the JSF? I'm sure doing so ensured plenty of campaign contributions and post retirement "consulting" jobs for the decision makers.
from a recent William Hartung article:
Delete•The four most important F-35 contractors – Lockheed Martin ($4.1 million), BAE Systems ($1.4 million), Northrop Grumman ($3.5 million), and United Technologies, the parent company of F-35 engine-maker Pratt and Whitney ($2.1 million) – have made a total of $11.1 million in campaign contributions in the 2011/2012 and 2013/2014 election cycles. The vast majority of these contributions have gone to key members of the armed services or defense appropriations committees in the House and Senate, or to members of the 39-member House F-35 caucus.
•The top five recipients of contributions from F-35 contractors in the House of Representatives in the past two election cycles are House Armed Services Chair Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, $218,650; F-35 Caucus co-chair Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), $195,950; Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), $162,500; F-35 Caucus co-chair John Larson (DCT), $137,450; and Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), $85,000