The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
David AxeForbes StaffAerospace & DefenseI write about ships, planes, tanks, drones, missiles and satellites.
The U.S. Air Force's top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
The result would be a high-low mix of expensive "fifth-generation" F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive "fifth-generation-minus" jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.
If that plan sounds familiar, it's because the Air Force a generation ago launched development of an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small future fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT packed it with more and more new technology.
Yes, we're talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a new fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.
With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive. While stealthy and brimming with high-tech sensors, it's also maintenance-intensive, buggy and unreliable. "The F-35 is not a low-cost, lightweight fighter," said Dan Ward, a former Air Force program manager and the author of popular business books including The Simplicity Cycle.
The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."
"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force's roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn't bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.
In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force's top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn't want more of the classic planes.
The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a "clean-sheet design" for a new low-end fighter.
Brown's comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. As conceived in the 1990s, the program was supposed to produce thousands of fighters to displace almost all of the existing tactical warplanes in the inventories of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.
But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35's very concept. "They tried to make the F-35 do too much," said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.
There's a small-wing version for land-based operations, a big-wing version for the Navy's catapult-equipped aircraft carriers and, for the small-deck assault ships the Marines ride in, a vertical-landing model with a downward-blasting lift engine.
The complexity added cost. Rising costs imposed delays. Delays gave developers more time to add yet more complexity to the design. Those additions added more cost. Those costs resulted in more delays. So on and so forth.
Fifteen years after the F-35's first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets. Now the service is signaling possible cuts to the program. It's not for no reason that Brown has begun characterizing the F-35 as a boutique, high-end fighter in the class of the F-22. The Air Force ended F-22 production after completing just 195 copies.
"The F-35 is approaching a crossroads," Grazier said.
Pentagon leaders have hinted that, as part of the U.S. military's shift in focus toward peer threats—that is, Russia and China—the Navy and Air Force might get bigger shares of the U.S. military's roughly $700-billion annual budget. All at the Army's expense.
"If we're going to pull the trigger on a new fighter, now's probably the time," Grazier said. The Air Force could end F-35 production after just a few hundred examples and redirect tens of billions of dollars to a new fighter program.
But it's an open question whether the Air Force will ever succeed in developing a light, cheap fighter. The new low-end jet could suffer the same fate as the last low-end jet—the F-35—and steadily gain weight, complexity and cost until it becomes, well, a high-end jet.
If that happens, as it's happened before, then some future Air Force chief of staff might tell reporters—in, say, the year 2041—that the new F-36 is a Ferrari and you don't drive your Ferrari to work every day.
To finally replace its 60-year-old F-16s, this future general might say, the Air Force should develop an affordable, lightweight fighter.
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
The problems began when someone suggesting to make one aircraft to meet the needs of the three branches in order to save money. The reality of meeting those needs were steep hurdles with the biggest one being the Marines wanting a VTOL (Vertical Takeoff And Landing) landing to replaced their aging AV-8 Harriers. This required the design to house a 60" diameter fan in the center of the aircraft to provide the vertical thrust to make the aircraft VTOL capable. Lots of weight.
The Navy, because the aircraft needs to withstand the forces of catapult and arrested carrier landings needed a beefed up airframe and heavier landing gear to make that happen. Lots more weight.
As the F-35 added pounds, to make it able to fly, designers had to reduce it's fuel capacity and weapons loads, which compromised how long it could stay in a fight, the reach of it's punch and its lethality. Now you've compromised the aircraft's basic mission right off the drawing board.
It has to be ten years now, but as the aircraft started to be put through it's paces in test flights, one of the test pilots told Aviation Weekly that "the F35 is a pig" "As a fighter, it can't climb, it can't turn, it can't run."
F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane | by David Axe | War Is Boring | Medium
The Navy has kept purchasing the lower cost F-18EF Super Hornet over the years to provide it with some sort of proven High-Low mix of aircraft to keep it's crews with a weapon they can go to battle with. The Air Force put all it's eggs into the F35.
The F35 is going to be hard to kill as Lockheed has managed to spread construction contracts throughout the 50 states. To kill the aircraft means killing jobs in their own districts...something congressmen avoid like the plague.
It's not like this was foreseen. The problems were there in the design. Lockheed has been wasting taxpayer money for decades. They're very good at it.
I flew in the Lockheed S-3A Viking in the 1980. It actually was a solid, cost effective aircraft. It was a mostly "off the shelf" aircraft. A-10 warthog engines, A-7 landing gear, improved sonar system from the P-3. Plus it was a patrol aircraft. Even then, we were replacing antennas and antenna wiring as it wasn't capable of withstanding the salt air environment.
Like the F-4 Phantom...a lead sled.
But the F-4 went on to a long and useful life once they got control of missile quality issues, and put a 20mm gun back on the thing. It did well in SEAD tasking as well.
And yes.... It had the aerodynamics of a brick!
But, I can tell you, in 'Nam, that the sound of the two General Electric engines whining as it leveled to make the ground strike you requested was the sound of heaven.
FUBAR
Very expensive FUBAR! If this thing goes toe to toe with a late design Russian or Chinese fighter, it's going to get clubbed to death like a baby seal. Worse, our pilots know it. How do you think they feel about taking a soup ladle into a knife fight?
Man, so glad we spent like $1.5 trillion on a car we are only gonna take out for a quick drive on sundays!
What a useless piece of shit, they are essentially admitting that we don’t actually need it for anything and we have plenty of other aircraft that are gonna be pulling all the weight anyhow.
My favorite was anyone thinking that it could do the job of the A-10 Warthog.
Former VP Dick Cheney essentially killed the F-14D in the 2000s calling it a "Jobs Program", at the same time it was receiving the engine upgrades that it had been designed for back in the 1970s. When compared to the very buggy F-35 that administration pushed, the maintenance hours of the F-14 were half of that of the F-35. Yes... I miss the Tomcat. It may be nostalgia, but the AWG-9 radar in combination with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile was exactly the sort of first line of weapon system needed to counter todays anti-ship cruse missiles.
Hundred of billions of dollars wasted on this with more to come, how wonderful. At the same time, we have those in the house and senate complaining about helping the American people. Aren't priorities great?
Got to wonder if Lockheed will pull the "too big to fail" approach.
Think about our allies that have been strong armed into purchasing the POS.... It's the F-104 all over again. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989, its high accident rate earning it the nickname "the Widowmaker" from the German public. Meanwhile it was found that Lockheed had been paying government officials bribe money to select the F-104 for their country.
What a waste of money. Meanwhile the dormitories that airmen are living in where Mr G works are falling apart
Well Trout, it would seem that the F-35 and the useless border wall have a number of things in common.
Interestingly, the wall works - the 35 doesn't.
When I was doing environmental reviews (NEPA for those who know) for the AF at Patrick AFB, we conducted the reviews on the 22 and the 35. After meeting with maintenance folks and pilots, we wrote the neither of the a/c would meet the requirements due to a number of factors. At the time (early 90's) the noise issue and air conduction/circulation for the cockpit were our largest concerns to which Lockheed Martin replied that there would be no problems as they were in the process of fixing them. Well, they didn't.
Yeah, seems like a small issue, but the a/c engineering auditors listed over 100 concerns/issue - which also were not addressed. Lockheed "needed" that $142M per a/c and did all they could to disguise/hide the disabilities to keep production going.
Funny thing 1st. The F35 was grounded a number of years ago due to problems with the oxygen generator not feeding the pilot enough O2. I think the military installed similar systems in many aircraft replacing the LOX systems that had worked so well for so many years. Was this some of the stuff your team identified?
Yeah - and the sad part is that they conducted flight testing in our SW terrains for compatibility to the Middle East environment and all the pilots went apeshit 'cause they couldn't breath due to the dust invading the cockpit space and engine space creating unbalanced flight patterns.
Lockheed said no problem - they'd fix it.
As far as I know, no 22 has been used in the Middle East due to the high maintenance/lack of parts availability.
After years of constant deployments to the region, the Air Force’s stealth air superiority fighter is not currently flying overwatch in Iraq and Syria, as the service tries to mend its F-22 fleet to meet readiness requirements and reassesses how it is basing its Raptors.
Taking the F-22s out of constant combat operations allows the Air Force to focus on much-needed Raptor maintenance, as it faces the daunting task of bringing its F-22, F-35, and F-16 fleets up to an 80 percent readiness rate. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in September ordered the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy to meet this goal, and the Air Force has said it expects to do so by the end of the fiscal year.
Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, who is expected to take over Air Force Materiel Command, said last month the Air Force won’t hit 80 percent with all of its aircraft, but it will with its combat-coded fleet. Lt. Gen. Mark Kelly, the Air Force’s director of operations, said in December that an F-22 and F-35 parts shortage, along with the low-observable coating the stealth aircraft uses—which can be impacted by constant operations in in the desert—complicate this effort.
There have been no "constant" combat operations. The 15/16/18/warthogs have carried on the air defense capabilities. So, you can see that the AF is really admitting that their "dream" failed.
The constant "Forever Wars" have put a lot of extra wear and tear on the equipment in every branch. It is wearing out faster than it can be maintained or replaced. I'm sure you've seen this coming just like I have 1st. Lets talk about the wear and tear on personnel as well.
With the AF and Navy screaming for new pilots because theirs are overstressed.
They get their training, and head to the friendly skies of commercial airlines for mo-money & less stress!
Gee... Whooda thunk it?
Meanwhile,the Chinese are working on pilotless aircraft. Cheaper, better performing, and never a dead pilot.
But hey!
Last I've seen, we're working on the concept of "Swarm Drones". Neat Concept if they can make it work.
China already has them.
We seen demonstrations of drone swarms... for advertising...
Flashing multicolor lights, shifting patterns...
Hey! If Madison Ave can do it...
A design that we stole from the Brits (Sopwith Camel) and have given Lockheed a $1 trillion dollar contract to upgrade it. Estimated overruns to be $1 trillion for a grand total of $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
The first upgrade will be the new and improved paint job. Cost $100 million each.
In today's political expenditures, that $2T should be boosted to $10T - gotta cover them terrible maintenance issues ya know.
Well, let's pad that number by another 10%. Remember we have to "invest" in members of congress to keep the gravy train going.....
Well, if America was capable of stealing a design from the Brits, maybe they should try to steal the designs of the newest fighter-jets being produced by the Russians and Chinese. Actually, I'm sure they're trying.
Meanwhile, modern F-16s are being built and sold to the British and others, by Lockheed.
Defies explanation doesn't it SP!
At Holloman AFB, NM, they moved the F-22's to Luke AFB, AZ, and transferred Luke's "modified" F-16's to Holloman for training as the 22's/35's weren't being used in the Middle East.
But - there is the "new" F-16 called the F-21 with huge updates/upgrades -
And another "new" F-15, called the F-15X, also with huge updates/upgrades -
Interestingly, Lockheed Martin manufactures both.
Who else is left? General Dynamics merged with Lockheed. Boeing swallowed McDonnell Douglas.
As far as I know, only Boeing is producing F15s, but Lockheed was doing some systems updates on older F 15s
and developing an infrared detection system like FLIR for all models.
Boeing (Northrup/Grumman/McDonnald-Douglas) is still out there making the FA-18EF, & G, and the E-2D.
Grumman understood carrier aircraft through and through. Much more than Lockheed ever did, or ever will.
I'm curious. If the fortune spent on the F 35 produced what they are calling a failure, I wonder how many billions of American dollars were spent developing it.
What are we Canadians finally buying?
The Pentagon's five-year budget plan for the F-35 falls short by as much as $10 billion, the military's independent cost analysis unit has concluded, a new indication that the complex fighter jet may be too costly to operate and maintain.
The Defense Department's blueprint for the next five fiscal years calls for requesting $78 billion for research and development, jet procurement, operations and maintenance and military construction dedicated to the F-35 built by Lockheed Martin Corp. But the cost analysis unit estimates $88 billion will be needed.
The estimated shortfall was set out in a four-page review dated June 17 and marked "For Official Use Only." The document, obtained by Bloomberg News, provides the first comprehensive estimate through 2077 for the Pentagon's costliest weapons program since it underwent a major reorganization in 2012.
The F-35's total "life cycle" cost is estimated at $1.727 trillion in current dollars. Of that, $1.266 trillion is for operations and support of the advanced plane that's a flying supercomputer.
Well, I guess it made some people a lot of money, and kept a lot of workers employed.
*...we Canadians..."?