This article first appeared in Defense Technology International.
After a year of broken promises and blown deadlines, and failure to make progress in flight testing that not even the harshest critics predicted, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is on the defensive.
The obvious problem is that flight-testing continues at a snail’s pace. In January, program leaders were promising that 10 test aircraft would fly in 2009, and even in the spring they were forecasting that the first vertical landing would take place in late summer or early fall. By September, only one new jet was flying, but they still promised five more aircraft by year-end, and a vertical landing in October or November. By early December, one of those five aircraft had flown; BF-1, tasked with the vertical-landing tests, made it to the NAS Patuxent River, Md., flight-test center but had not flown again by mid-December.
The team blames manufacturing issues in general, and former program leadership in particular, saying too much emphasis was placed on visible milestones, so that aircraft rolled out were not ready to fly and aircraft that flew were not ready for sustained testing. In September, program leadership made a prediction, identified as 12–12-12: Within 12 months the team would have 12 aircraft in test and they would each be flying 12 sorties per month.
That prediction has been put in doubt by two developments: the small-to-zero likelihood that the end-of-2009 goals will be achieved; and a negative report by the reconvened Joint Estimating Team, which first reported on JSF in the fall of 2008. That report, predicting that testing would be completed two years late, was dismissed by JSF leaders as based on obsolete concepts of flight testing. The second report, indicating that the picture had not improved, persuaded new Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter to start looking at ways to reduce risk and mitigate delays.
Read the rest of this story, see how Afghanistan is cashing in on its defense, wager on the A400M and look back at the strength of defense-related stock with our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Anyone able to provide stats comparing the f-22 cost and abilities vs f-35 cost and abilities?
So wait, we stopped funding the already tested and in full production F-22 and decided to ramp production up into the untested F-35. And this was the smart move?
i believe we (the uk) should cut our ~$3 billion losses, pull out of this increasingly turkey-shaped project and instead a) buy the full tranche 3 of eurofighters we ordered b) equip our new (if we still get 'em …) carriers with catapults c) fly navalised eurofighters from them – apprently the royal navy has been considering the latter as plan b for a while and it wouldn't be as expensive or as tricky as you might think. the costs, delays, weight issues, engine issues, software code sovereignity are all getting far too much for what was originally going to be ~150 planes and is now likely to be half this in any case.
I don't think it's hard to foresee an f-22 like debacle wherein the original plan of thousands of aircraft ends up being more like four or five hundred, and the US air arsenal continues on it's path to becoming the smallest, oldest force since ww2, albeit with the highest level of pentagon spending since the same time.
First barry gets rid of F22 and now the F35…. he is gutting america's strategic aerospace advantage
Good Morning Folks,
Me thinks its time to tale a realistic look at the whole F-35 program. The F-35 when it becomes in the distant future will cost something above $100 million per aircraft. Just what is the 1/10th. of a billion bucks getting us in defense value.
Because of the time it has take in development the technology will be 39 plus years old before the first F-35 is operational. The air to air fighter role that it was envisioned for at this time almost doesn’t exist any more and in ten yeas that mission will be routinely done by UCAV’s.
Although the air to ground mission is now being sold, do we really want a $100 million F-35 with a potential POW and a couple of hours over target before have to be in air refueled at at cost of $100.00 per gallon, and in the cock pit doing the job that $6-12 million UAV is already now doing, with 30 hours over a target and minus the the pilot?
The other role it’s being billed as able to be adapted for is ISR. The F-35 bring to little, way to late to the ISR program(s).
Maintenance and support. A manned fighter requires about 3-4 hours of maintenance time for every hour in the air, for carrier aircraft add an hour or two. Air Force Pilots cost $2.5 million to train, and a $1 million a year to maintain, Naval Aviators cost about $3.5 million to train and about a $1.5 million a year to maintain. Of course all Fighter/Attack are officers. In both cases it takes about two years after training with an operational unit for a fight crew to be combat capable and ready.
In the case of the Air Force you have already invested $4.5 million before a her/his first combat mission, for the Navy you will have $6.5 million invested before a first combat mission. A UCAV pilot and controller can be trains in six months and flying operational missions at less the a $1 million each.
For the UAV’s the pilot training is 12 weeks and about 90 days with an operational training unit and they UAV pilot is ready for combat. In the Army the pilot will be an E-4-E-6 who are paid a whole lot less the officers. The Army does plan to add a proficiency pay for UCAV pilots and controllers, what ever it is it will be only a fraction of the fight and hazardous duty pay of a flight officer.
The F-35 adds nothing to the wars we are fighting and its role is quite problematic in any future conflict. The F-35 wouldn’t be ready in time for the current wars anyway. The F-35 is a legacy platform like the battleship and the late F-22 whos usefulness as a combat weapons platform are no longer needed. Save a few hundred billions of dollars and just cancel the F-35 outright.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I think you are right to a point. But the road you are describing hangs too much of our ability to project power with the UAVs. All an adversary needs to do is neutralize our ability to uplink to the UAVs and we would have no airforce. And there are a number of nations that could do it. Just send one moderately sized atomic tipped missile straight up 120 miles and detonate. We would be in a world of hurt trying to stop any invasion of South Korea or Taiwan or Georgia even. Even if these birds are over priced, we still need some number of manned fighter/bombers to do the job in a hostile world.
but if you're sending a nuke straight up you're probably frying the gps satellite system and all the communications satellites as well. it won't matter if we're flying manned or unmanned at that point. our air force wouldn't know what to do without their main navigational and targeting tool
One outcome from the F-22 wargaming was that their sensors were so good that they could loiter stealth-ily over the battlefield as act as a mini-AWACS, guiding in ordinance from over the horizon from other platforms (perhaps even sea- or air-launched cruise missiles). We will ALWAYS need manned aircraft. Carriers will also become obsolete in 10 years due to the proliferation of cheap UAVs and precision munitions. So, the future is long-range UAV weapon platforms working with air-dominance, sensor laden manned F-22-type aircraft.
We should just scrap the F-35 and spend the money on a combination of UAVs and F-22s.
Its Bill Sweetman, need I say more…
***
Byron Skinner,
No ther F-35 will be significantly LESS than $100 million per unit flyaway once it reaches full rate production (which is not THAT far away). Note that LRIP contracts have been BELOW projections & yet you want us to believe that full rate production untis will be >50% more expensive than projections. Get real.
The air to air fighter role is going to be around for A LONG time to come. IOC for the FIRST true strike capable UCAVs isn't planned until 2025 & even then it will be a niche platform that will SUPPLIMENT & COMPLIMENT manned aircraft rather than be replacing them. For example the USN plans for just ONE OF FIVE CAW fighter/attack squadrons to be UCAVs. And air to air UCAV are even further away.
Earth to Byron Skinner…the F-35 wasn't developed to fight jihadist.
Once again you show you have no clue of reality OR what you are talking about.
Good Evening Folks,
To the poster who mentioned Nuclear weapons. A bit of trivia for you. Nuclear weapons don’t use GPS guidance systems. I can’t give the reasons, they are classified but me thinks you can figure them out for yourself. Two common guidance systems used in nuclear weapons are INS and TERCOM, any more again is classified.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Nice try pfcem, however the F-35 program is yet to prove all of that wonderful PowerPoint spin. Price, schedule, capability, IOC dates, everything… all turning into fantasy.
What we have is a group of DOD people lead by Gates that suppressed negative reports of the F-35 until the F-22 was cancelled. Along with the USAF, USN and USMC service chiefs basically lying in front of our elected officials earlier this year telling us how great the F-35 program was going.
As for the status of the F-35 program-Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations. And… why can't Daddy program manage?
What does any of that have to do with what I posted?
Note that LRIP contract have been BELOW projections. :)
And just were are these mythical suppressed negative reports & or lying USAF, USN and USMC service chiefs?
Have you even been paying attention to the news over the past several months? The F-35 is months behind schedule not 2+ years…
Having current experience with a major Navy program testing at Pax I can assure you all the delays are not the contractors. Every single NAVAIR procedure requires some 60 signatures on a test work description and if one person makes a comment that results in even the smallest admin mod, everyone has to re-sign. Contrast this with the Air Force and the equivalent test directive where it’s typically less than 10 signatures. There is a reason why the Air Force has developed some many more system in a given time than the Navy and it’s called objectives and accountability.
I love how the development of a plane that is totally inferior to one that already exists (F-22) is being so problematic.
Byron skinner: "The air to air fighter role that it was envisioned for at this time almost doesn't exist any more and in ten yeas that mission will be routinely done by UCAV's."
You've watched the terminator movies to often.
No UCAV will be replacing fighters anytime in this half of this century.
Note how no nation anywhere is even designing an unmaned fighter, that should give you a huge insight into the faith various worlds airforces and governments have in the idea.
Case closed.
ELP "Nice try pfcem, however the F-35 program is yet to prove all of that wonderful PowerPoint spin. Price, schedule, capability, IOC dates, everything"
Isn;t that pretty much how all modern aircraft start out, can you name a recent fighter jet that has been on and schedule? No thought not.
I'm no fan of the F-35 but what you imply by the sentence I quoted is idiotic.
Jimbo,good one!!!
That old saw doesn't work. The problem is program officials lying to our elected officials. Look at at LM press releases and similar and they are nothing more than spin. Just like a day ago, where LM says the program is not in trouble.
Good Morning Folks,
Don’t be to hard on pfcem, she/he has ran out of any logical arguments to defend the F-35 program that’s all. Personal attacks and unfounded speculation of future needs is all the she/he has.
Issues regarding costs both purchase and life time, and the tactical need of manned fighter/attack aircraft program are issues that proponents of the F-35 simply can’t understand.
The truth be said the United States simply can’t afford the costly F-35. That money is needed for Healthcare, improving post secondary education, nutrition programs and other social programs that have been neglected since the Reagan era.
The luxury of weapons platforms/systems designed to fight a future enemy that may or may not come along is a relic of the 20th. Century. We are in at least two, perhaps three wars right now, and the F-35 brings nothing that isn’t already there to any of these wars, what ever it can do is simply not cost effective, if it could be ready in time to take part in any of these conflicts, which by all current indicators it won’t.
NG bares watching. Other then tanker deal with EADS, which I think is heading into the tank they have put all their eggs, as they use to say into UAV programs, and are moving the Main Offices to Washington DC so they can more aggressively lobby for their products. The new CEO Wes Bush bares watching, the sleepy old NG is history, look for him to rid NG of under performing units/divisions and go shopping for small enterprises that is involved in the unmanned weapons platforms on air/sea/land.
I don’t think it’s a big secret that NG wants to displace both General Dynamics/BAE and Lockheed Martin in the ranking of major defense contractors. It has to be assumed that one of the big defense contractors will have to close its doors in the near future and NG doesn’t want to be the odd man without a seat at the table. I would say that any company still trying to sell manned combat aircraft is a candidate for extinction.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Ok, I feel kinda silly now. I didn't realize Skinners posts were sarcasm.
"The truth be said the United States simply can't afford the costly F-35. That money is needed for Healthcare, improving post secondary education, nutrition programs and other social programs that have been neglected since the Reagan era."
I almost busted a gut.
Care to shoiw ANY of my argument to be wrong or not logical…
It is YOU who simply can't understand issues regarding costs both purchase and life time, and the tactical need of manned fighter/attack aircraft.
The truth is the US can EASILY afford to BOTH the F-22 & F-35 and pretty much everything else needed to recapitalize what is currently essentially a 1980's force.
Sorry but aside from the need to replace aircraft that eith already have or a quickly exceeding their economical/operational lives, YOU FIGHT WARS WITH THE MILITARY YOU HAVE, NOT THE ONE YOU WISH YOU HAD.
And just what is all that "NG bares watching" supposed to be about?
Good Morning Folks,
To the poster who was critical of using money for needless defense platforms to fund social program. If the defense is not for the people they why bother with. Many of those Americans citizens in need of help just to live. Last Wednesday when I went to the local VAMC there was a table set up in the lobby to collect funds to help the families of service personal serving in the war zones. This is nothing less then disgraceful. If the country can’t provide for the needs of it service personal and their families while they are off fighting a war it doesn’t deserve their service.
It is unlikely that the individual that wrote that post ever served a day of military for her/his country, it it far more likely that that the posters income is in some due to government expenditures, to begrudge help to a fellow citizen in need is reprehensible and repugnant.
This is also a national security issue. Over 50% of the men/women who enter a military recruiters office to enlist have to be refused, the one with legal issue don’t even come through the door, the many if not most of these prospective recruits can’t pass a physical or are lacking in educational achievements.
In 2005 I served on a dod advisory committee dealing with the awol/failure to complete Basic Training with recruits at Ft. Knox Ky. The drop out rate was 18%. the over riding reason for failing was that the recruits could physically cope with military life. The solution from the Rumsfeld dod was of course was to lower the entry requirements and dumb down training to the level that now “only” 6% fail.
In 2000 military recruiting had a pool of manpower from the lower 30% of the Americans social/economic classes, now even with dumbing down requirements and expanding the age that one can enlist at that pool is now at 20% level even with the current economic situation.
The population now that makes up our active military is the same population who is in the most need of Healthcare, Nutritional help, educational assistance and college assistance. The reasons why the people are in this dire position are irrelevant they need help and their country heeds them. If we don’t help these people there will be no one to use the toys all of you want to buy.
ALOONS,
Byron Skinner
First, lets get the mud slinging neutralized before it takes over the entire argument. Attacking an argument based on the perceived credentials of the speaker makes for a weak debate strategy. The validity of the statement should always be addressed on its own. Whether I were a high school drop out or God himself shouldn't come into the discussion. It's called Appeal to Authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority and it's a cheap shot.
Now onto the main differences. I see where you are going and I have no hope to dissuade you from it. Most of the political issues that dominate the culture right now have to do with this fundamental disparity in perception. You (and if I'm off on this I apologies) believe that all the problems facing society can be fixed if we just try a little harder, put a little more money into it, just care a little bit more. That it's out collective misappropriation of energies that are the root problem. In other words…suffering is curable. I don't believe you can. I don't believe any of the issues you mentioned in your post are fixable. In fact I believe that society will actually get worse the more we try to fix it. We could completely defund the armed services and spend all that revenue on education or healthcare or whatever and all we would have to show for it at the end is empty bases. This last year has been a very good example of this…the stimulus that was approved was quite a bit over our annual defense appropriation. How has it helped anyone? The hungry will always be among us, cats will always have too many kittens and the elderly will always need one more drug. I'm not saying you shouldn't care. You should always help your neighbor when they need it. It's how most people raise their kids. It makes for a stronger society. But to answer every question with a cry of "what about the children" is akin to crying wolf. At some point people stop listening.
If you want a much more eloquently written dissertation on what I'm getting at check out this Thomas Sowell book. http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideologica…
Good Morning Folks,
The response to my post regarding the social problems and spending is so transparently vile that they don’t merit any response, the person who posted it didn’t even have the courage to give their name.
I will say this to all of you who are serving in the military, this is what the people who started these wars and sent you and are still sending you into harms way think of you and your family. All the cra** you hear about concerns for your welfare and your families is just so much bull sh**, it goes out the window when they can buy useless gold plated toys like the F-35 which will do nothing to help you come home from war alive.
When you leave the military you will encounter an unemployment rate among Veterans of over 25%, if you happen to be a severely disabled Veteran you chance of finding a productive job over your life time are slight. Congress is already having second thoughts about Veterans benefits and is limiting the education benefit even before any Veteran has a change to collect on it, more cuts will come you can bet on it, including healthcare.
The mentality that wrote that post would rather spend $300 billion on worthless obsolete weapons platforms, like the F-35 (30 year old technology) and cut billions of dollars out of both general social programs and Veterans benefits to pay for it. Think about who is expendable here?
The above statement is not from some lace curtain liberal, but a Veteran of Vietnam (MOS 11B) who is both an amputee and has what you would call TBI, much of my skull is reconstructed form coral. If you are expecting a little help from those who sent you forget it. One telling thing is the homeless stats. Sec. Shenseki noted that their are 130K homeless Veterans in 2009, down from 300K in 2000. What the General forgot to say is the 170 missing died.
On to the topic at hand the F-35, well the best you can say is that it was a bad week for the F-35. First five year production has been cut from 483 F-35′s, all variants, to 264 or about a 25% cut, rational thinking is winning. The F-35 now has a set production rates to meet, 2011-10 planes, 2012-42, 2013-45, 2014-77, 2015-90, any missed for a years buy will be cut from the program.
The down side is Lockheed Martin announced on Thursday that they would eliminate 1,200 jobs from the F-35 program. As always when management screws up it the line/production worker who pays the price. Workers are expendable, Lockheed Martins profits are not.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner