America’s new trillion-dollar fighter jet under fire again! How could so much money result in so little value?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:22:27 -0400

It’s tough being the world’s most expensive weapon system. Years behind schedule and billions over-budget, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has had to absorb its fair share of critiques. Over the past several years, it’s been described as too complex, too reliant on high-tech sensors and software, and—at $400 billion for development and procurement—far too costly.

A spate of recent program milestones—including being declared operational by the U.S. Marine Corps last month—seemed to suggest the program might be turning a corner this summer. But a scathing report published Monday by a D.C.-based think tank indicates otherwise. To paraphrase analysts at the progressive National Security Network (NSN): The F-35 Lightning II fighter jet will perform horrendously against “near-peer” enemies, and the Department of Defense should rethink its proposed buy of nearly 2,500 F-35s.

“The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the NSN report reads. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35.”

That’s a fairly damning assessment of an aircraft designed to be the workhorse multirole fighter jet for the U.S. and its allies for the next few decades. The Lockheed-Martin-built F-35 is slated to replace a number of jets across the American service branches, including U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s, and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps F-18s. Several foreign militiaries have also pledged to purchase the F-35, including Canada, Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Read more at ...

http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/?xid=ob_rss

========================================

America’s new trillion-dollar fighter jet under fire again

The F-35 fighter jet will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors, says a new report by think tank National Security Network.

Response by PO1 Tony Holland made Aug 21 at 2015 3:44 AM

PO1 Tony Holland — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:44:02 -0400

This is indicative of the too urgent need to completely overhaul the procurement system. The Military-Industrial-Complex President Eisenhower warned about is totally out of control. We should set forth mission requirements and let the arms industry figure out how to deliver suitable items on their own dime for evaluation and acceptance.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 21 at 2015 4:15 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:15:52 -0400

Remember the Osprey. How long have we been paying for that Beast and it has come into and out of favor many times since early in my career and I have long since retired. It is still considered by some to be a Flying Coffin for Marines. We never give up on a Military Project. It is someone's porkbelly project. Keeps his Constituents employed no matter how well it actually works.

Response by MSgt Niclas Svensson made Aug 21 at 2015 6:03 AM

MSgt Niclas Svensson — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:03:21 -0400

While the F-35 has all the bells and whistles and a lot of "cool factor", the fact is that it can't do the job of the aircraft it is supposed to replace nearly as well. You are telling me this thing is going to take the place of the A-10 and do that mission as well as the A-10 does? Please...

The A-10, F-16, and F-18 are all better CAS options than the F-35.
Lets just look at the gun:
A-10 - 1350 rounds of 30mm
F-18 - 578 rounds of 20mm
F-16 - 511 rounds of 20mm
F-35 - 182 rounds of 25mm...182 rounds? Why bother even putting a gun in it? Forget strafing with the thing.

Durability? Now not every aircraft can get half a wing blown off and still come home like the A-10 can, but I have a hard time believing that the F-35 could even stand up to small arms fire let alone AAA, rockets, or missiles...the thing is so reliant on its tech, that if the sensors got damaged, it would be useless.

I could keep going, but you get the point...
Like it said...it's got cool factor, but I just don't see it doing the job as well as the current legacy aircraft.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 8:30 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:30:37 -0400

The USA seems incapable of sticking to the maxim that a fighter is a fighter. Over the decades since WWII, we've taken some awesome tactical aircraft and ruined then by attempting to make them strategic.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 21 at 2015 12:21 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:21:06 -0400

It appears like a presidential election. One side says it cant dog fight well, and is unprepared to for CAS. The other side says it can kill at long distances, and it has 181 25mm rounds for CAS. It feels like we bought a Rolls Royce but got a Honda Accord instead.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Aug 21 at 2015 12:27 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:27:25 -0400

Maybe one day the government will invest in programs that have actual deadlines that they will enforce. Vice continually spending absurd amounts of money at tax payers expense.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Aug 21 at 2015 1:30 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:30:34 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad I'm no expert on this aircraft and there are a lot of comments by those who know much more about than me, so I defer to them on the aircraft. One thing I wiil comment on and that is wasted leadership and a procurement system for our defense equipment that seems to be broke. Why have we allowed this prorgram to go over budget and why have we allowed the continued financing of this defense contractor that apparently couldn't provide the right contract details, make deadlines, and produce the desire deliverables on time for this project? Hopefully, there are penaliteis built in for the non-deliverables for this government contract against Lockheed-Martin! This really shows you how much money we are wasting on contracts that aren't meeting the objectives. I ask those out there that know and understand this porcess much better than me, did we have the same issues with the A-10, F-15, F-16, and F-18s?

Response by SFC Jon Vandeyacht made Aug 21 at 2015 1:57 PM

SFC Jon Vandeyacht — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:57:44 -0400

Ohh look, its pretty, its shiny, it has wheels and makes lots of noise. It can even shoot and bomb. I will even throw in some colored paint to make it look even more mean.... How much? ohh I will quote you that each will cost 23 million per. BUT, There is a possibility of a slight overrun of 39 BILLION. You will pick up the tab right??
If my home contractor, with whom I have a signed contract with, which states I will get a new roof with new underlayment, done in 2 days for $4,300.00. and he takes 6 days and it ends up costing him &9,243.17, I will be damned if I am going to pay him a penny more than the contract, now will the small claims courts force me to because the contract states how much and how long.

WHY WHY WHY, do the tax payers have to pay the difference when the contractor can not come in with the price they quoted? They consistently offer lower numbers than their competition just to get the contract and then charge whatever they want anyway because our government pays the bills and refuses to say, "whow, hold on there partner, you must deliver 100 jets and at the quoted price, no more 93,000% cost overruns."

This is so frustrating.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 21 at 2015 3:00 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:00:35 -0400

Someone somewhere in some congressional district is lining their pockets because of this deal - like many other military industrial complex deals. It's not about building what the military needs, it's about building something that pays government contractors what they want.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 21 at 2015 6:35 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:35:35 -0400

Every new defense system falls behind. The cost overruns are magnified by the times. Another example of this is the KC46 - the Boeing 767 airframe tanker.

One of the issues surrounding both issues is that we have so few airframe manufacturers in the US. That Airbus was allowed to compete on the 46 is an embarrassment.

When McDonnell Douglas went under, Federal and military regulators should not have allowed Boeing to buy them out. A better plan would have been to have Lockheed, Ratheon, and others like them buy MD in a collective, to keep some competition in the US. Monopolies never benefit the end customer - in this case, the taxpayer.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Aug 22 at 2015 12:38 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:38:19 -0400

This is what you get when, as Pierre Sprey explained, you try to make a hammer that also cuts wood and hauls cement, it will do none of them well. A jack of all trades, makes a master of none. Congress and Pentagon procurement officials need to remove the term "Multi-Role" from their lexicon. They use it as a marketing ploy, "It slices, it dices, it makes julienne fries," in order to sell it as a "more bang for the buck" weapons system.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 22 at 2015 8:49 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 08:49:20 -0400

The more complex the platform, the greater the chance of failure. A weapons system can't be all things to all men.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 22 at 2015 9:39 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:39:57 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Gunny hope with all the money being spent the F-35 turns out to be like the Bradley. The M2/M3 Bradley had many problems and was on the chopping block a few times before they fixed it and made it a good weapon system.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 22 at 2015 1:51 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:51:20 -0400

How could so much money result in so little value?
That's easy... Politics and bribery... :)

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Aug 22 at 2015 5:01 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:01:40 -0400

Only three words are necessary, Gunny...

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Aug 22 at 2015 10:10 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:10:00 -0400

My uncle, who was a Landing Signals Officer in WWII, told me this after I tried to shoot a squirrel with a BB gun while riding a bike (it didn't end well for me or the bike... the squirrel was unharmed).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2015 11:09 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:09:21 -0400

Just goes to show how high the corruption and greed goes. We all know the military pays way to damn much for the civilian counterpart. Toilet paper for example, government pays more than the most luxurious consumer brand, yet it is literally the worst toilet paper ever made, you would expect a third world country had been the one that developed it. I hope and I pray that someday everyone who has there hand in the cookie jar will get it cut off. We have no reason to cut anything in our budget if we stop paying +500% of the original cost. Just like the toilet paper, this fighter jet was designed to make someones pockets fatter. The numbers and all the justifications will be skewed to justify it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 23 at 2015 10:14 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:14:12 -0400

Ignoring the specific piece of technology (F35) for just a moment, and focus on the Philosophy instead.

The Philosophy is sound. The idea is that the services are moving towards a "common platform." Think about it like our ground troops. All of our ground troops can grab a Service Rifle from any other branch and be fine, because we have a "common platform." We're all trained the same.

But when it comes to aircraft, that isn't the case. And it probably should be. Pilots, not Planes are the most valuable, and most LIMITED resource we have in Air Superiority. Pilots aren't expendable. Planes are. Planes change all the time. If a plane goes down, we can get a new plane. We lose a pilot, and it takes us years to get another one trained to the same level.

But... if all the services are using "similar" platforms, then that liability is greatly reduced. I'm not saying that the F35 (Technology) is the right solution, but it is the right Philosophy. Just like the M16A1 wasn't the right tech, but it was a step in the right direction.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2015 10:30 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:30:26 -0400

Have you ever seen the movie 'Pentagon Wars'? Military acquisitions is a broken process. Much like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle development, what probably started as a decent platform has devolved into something it different.

If you have 10 minutes to spare. Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

Pentagon Wars - Bradley Fighting Vehicle Evolution

From the movie "Pentagon Wars". Bradley Fighting Vehicle design and development. Any design engineer will love this scene.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 24 at 2015 12:01 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:01:59 -0400

Because... we never needed it in the first place...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 11 at 2015 12:29 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:29:50 -0400

It's like a Swiss army knife. It can do a lot of things but nothing great so far.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 29 at 2019 7:08 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:08:50 -0500

Sometimes success is based on attrition or good doctrine. We lost thousands of bombers and tanks in WWII due to bad doctrine.