« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Forbes: F-35 “Progressing Nicely”

When speaking about the F-35, it seems almost a default for many in the media to zero in on the problems with the program. As Loren Thompson points out in Forbes this week, the word most often used is “troubled” when speaking about the 5th generation fighter jet. But what about the areas where the program is succeeding?

In a timely piece that successfully counters some of the negative attention on the program, Thompson points out the many successes of the F-35 in recent months, calling the program the “Pentagon’s best-kept secret.”

From his article:

If you pay any attention to media coverage of the F-35 fighter program, then you know the Pentagon’s biggest weapons program is “troubled” (to use the favored adjective of reporters).  Flight tests are lagging, costs are skyrocketing, and overseas partners are beginning to get cold feet.  So the Joint Strike Fighter, as it used to be called, is looking like another black eye for the Pentagon’s fouled up acquisition system, right?

Wrong.  The reality is that for the third straight year flight tests are ahead of schedule, the cost to build each plane is falling fast, and international partners are so enthused that new customers are getting in line for the F-35 on a regular basis (South Korea will be next).  So how come you don’t know any of this?  The reason you don’t know it is that political appointees have decided they can score points with Congress by attacking their own program, and national media always lead with the most sensational information.

He goes on to argue that the fighter is indeed hitting many of its marks, including the much-discussed costs of production:

Obviously, any money that already has been spent can’t be recovered.  However, when you look at the cost going forward to build each new plane, that’s coming down — and fast.  The “unit recurring flyaway” cost for the most common variant of F-35 fell below $150 million each in the third low-rate production lot and will fall below $100 million in the fifth lot currently being negotiated.  By the time its gets to the tenth production lot, the recurring flyaway cost of the most common variant will be approaching what legacy F-16 and F/A-18 fighters sell for today.  Granted, that’s just what it costs to “drive it off the lot,” and doesn’t include items like training and spare parts.  On the other hand, the price-tag on legacy fighters doesn’t include all the equipment they will need in combat (the F-35 price-tag does), and older fighters don’t have the F-35′s stealth.

To view the full article, click here. And for more information on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, visit F35.com.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • sulmak

    Despite having a larger order for increased economies of scale.

    This plane was originally sold as all around cheaper alternative to the F-22, it is now more expensive off the shelf, and we scaled back orders of the F-22 to pay for F-35A’s.

    True, it was designed to have a lower maintenance and operating cost, and it almost certainly will, but this has yet to be proven.

    Its capabilities are generally inferior to the F-22 and advantages it has( Sensor suite) could likely be ported to a strike variant of the F-22.

    Also, they plan to use this plane to partially, originally fully, replace the A-10. . This plane is way to expensive to heavily use for close air-support, a role with heavy losses, maintenance costs make no difference if it gets shot down soon after being built. The air force has a history of trying to slack off on their responsibility to provide our ground troops with close air support in the past, a role that has been their most important one in most post WWII conflicts, and it appears they may have fallen back to their old habits. Between the A-1 Skyraider of 1945, and the A-10 of 1972, the Air Force tried passing the responsibility of air support to strike fighters, and it consistently proved very unsatisfactory. We should learn from our mistakes. It may be able to replace the F-16 and F-18, but this plane is no replacement for the A-10($11.8 million in 1994 dollars), a plane that you could buy over a dozen, if not a score, of for the same price of a single F-35A ($197 million, 2012 dollars). If an A-10 gets damaged beyond repair by AAA ground fire, it isn’t that big of a deal as long as the pilot is okay, but it is an unacceptable loss for a fifth of a billion dollar plane.

    That said we already paid for its development, which was much of the cost, so there is really no use crying over spilt milk.

    Also the STOVL F-35B has capabilities that are not replaceable, and I suspect the whole program is basically to subsidize its production at this point.

    I wish this program well, and don’t believe it should be canceled at this point, but it is clear that we shouldn’t have started a program with this many requirements in the first place, and the military procurement bureaucracy should take a lesson from that.

    It is the equivalent of putting all your eggs in on basket, great when it works, but costly when it doesn’t go exactly as planned.

    • Viet71

      At least, that was true in Viet Nam, where propeller planes and F-100 super sabres were mainly used, along with Huey gunships, to support troops on the ground today.

      The modern urban battle field is probably best supported by drones and helicopter gunships. Don’t see how the F-35 could be helpful here.

      • acat

        Those titanium tubs were built for CAS.

        The trouble with drones is the payload limits .. although I suppose a “swarm of bees” approach could work….

        Heard the argument, more than once, that the so-called Air Force “fighter mafia” don’t much like the trash hauler or CAS roles so, when they get promoted into the Pentagon, they tend to advocate fighter platforms.

        I’m wondering how long it’ll be before we need to re-visit the 1948 Key West agreement. Again. The Air Force sure seem to neglect the CAS role, perhaps it should go back to the Army Air Corps.

        Mew

        • aesthete

          When I was in, the A-10 was seen as a pretty sweet gig — maybe not quite at the same sexiness level as an F-18, but it wasn’t as low down the totem pole as cargo haulers.

          • acat

            Again, outsider on this, but ..

            The A-10 is purpose-built for CAS … and its’ pilots are not part of the “fighter mafia” … It’s not a cargo hauler, but it’s also not what the guys who get promoted into the Pentagon want to see built… because more of them come up through F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. than A-10….

            Perhaps this is related to survival rates?

            Mew

          • aesthete

            in the AF who are fighter jockeys is really quite staggering. That, and the emergence of drones as an even cheaper way to do the things that would usually be done by A-10s in Pakistan/Afghanistan and Yemen, are contributing to the de-emphasizing of the A-10s.

            Abandoning the A-10 and not commissioning a suitable replacement at the same time (the F-35 is NOT suitable as a replacement, by any means) is going to be something that the AF will live to regret, IMO.

          • acat

            The F-35 is not any more suitable for CAS than the F-16. Both fine aircraft, just .. not what they’re built to do. They both *can* do CAS .. but it’s like watching a Chevy Caprice trying to do an autocross slalom … Not. What. It’s. Built. To. Do.

            The more the Air Force resists combined arms missions, the more those missions are going to be taken on by non-Air Force branches…. and yes, I do think they will regret it.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            The A-10 does have higher casualty rates than other fighers, but that’s because of the missions it was designed to do, and the number of missions that they are employed for. Put pilots in F-35s to do those same missions, and casualties will go up for sure. IMO, it’s just nuts to try to mothball the highly effective, safe, and cheap A-10s in favor of an expensive and vulnerable fleet of F-35s.

            But, that’s the Pentagon for you.

          • acat

            engaged in narrowing their job description to “fighter pilots”.

            One wonders what they’ll do if when we develop fighter-drones.

            Mew

        • Viet71

          Just no need for an F-35 in this situation.

          For urban warfare, I’d go with a well-armed gunship.

          For Afghan type terrain, if I were a ground troop, I’d want to be able to call upon what works best. Maybe a drone; a gunship; an A-10. Not an F-35. That type of aircraft is suited to taking out enemy aircraft st a great distance, to pinpoint ground targeting.

          • acat

            are suited to air superiority, i.e. denying the enemy both the ability to bomb our positions and to do their own close air support.

            There are differences between the F-35 and F-22 .. and I’m not a fighter jock so won’t go into them .. but to claim either is appropriate for CAS is .. no sale.

            Mew

            p.s. Please add the AC-130U (“spooky”) to your list of CAS tools. They’re getting kind of old, but like the A-10, there’s no good *replacement* yet…

          • aesthete

            is their versatility: they were originally designed to operate in hilly and wet Central Europe for CAS missions against the Soviets, and outperformed in hot, dry Iraq. Overall, it’s exceeded expectations placed on it: it’s an easy plane to train on, and it’s incredibly flexible. In contrast, theoretically equivalent or better new weapons systems get grounded or wrecked when they’re put to the test: the A-16 in the Gulf War, or the Apache in Afghanistan. Heck, probably one of the most surprising things about the Predator was how short the development cycle was, and how effective it was after a few minor stumbles out the gate.

          • Viet71

            When I was growing up (25-28 years old), a gun ship was either a rotary wing aircraft with lots of fire power or a fixed wing aircraft with gattling guns and also maybe a 105 mm cannon (e.g., the spooky and specter aircraft that flew over South Viet Nam).

            BTW, witnessed a spooky hosing down VC attackers early one morning, about 2:00 a.m., at Bien Hoa Army Base. The spooky fired its gattling guns as it circled. Sounded just like a buzz saw. Looked like a red laser beam.

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            And there’s all kinds of great video.

          • Viet71

            Nights in Viet Nam. Leave it at that.

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            the whine of the Gatling gun.

          • funwithknives

            and difficulties of the F-35′ production please go to Aviation Week and Space Technology(‘s) website and access their updates over rthe past few years, leading up to now.

            There’s always another side, and ‘Forbes’ is not a full-time defense analysis authority/information source.
            {Full Disclosure: I subscribe to Both}

            I, in no way am claiming Loren has not got some salient points.
            he’s just not listing all of both kinds, positive and {the many remaining} negatives.

            Thanks for your kind attention. fwk

          • streiff

            The A-10 is an awesome aircraft in an urban environment. The 30mm gun carried by the A-10 is the second best weapon in our arsenal for actually hitting targets in buildings. The best is arguably the XM-1028 round from the M1 tank.

            The Apache battalions had to substantially change their tactics in order to survive in Iraq and went back to Vietnam era gun runs rather than creeping along nap of earth and engaging targets from standoff range.

          • Viet71

            Am aware of the 37 mm cannon. Was not aware of its usefulness against buildings, but I get the idea.

            The M-1 Abrams is the world’s supreme tank. Not very useful, IMO, in cities with narrow streets. Open terrain, the bad guys better hang it up.

            BTW, went through armor officer’s basic at Fort Knox in 1970. Fired the M-60′s main gun, a 105 mm beast. Even that gun, inferior to the Abrams 120 mm main gun, had tremendous destructive power. Yet the M-60 tank saw relatively little service in Viet Nam, where tanks proved to be especially good targets for the B40 rocket.

          • aesthete

            Fun fact: the M-24s that we gave to South Vietnam came to be known as “voting machines”, because the only time they were used was to quash the various domestic coups or in service of an internal power struggle.

          • Viet71

            Problem was, off to the side was either rice paddy or jungle.

            Favorite tactic of the NVA: hit the front and rear vehicles in a column with B-40s. If the vehicles were tanks, so much the better; heavy and difficult to move. Then they’d attack the intervening vehicles with rockets and automatic weapons.

    • sulmak

      Missed where the article had newer info, which I poorly assumed was the same as info from a few months back.

      Still not cheaper for the same number of planes, as originally intended, and still to expensive for close air support.

  • trimulchio

    improved saber?

    Would it make more sense to put money into an air supperiority drone/UAV/RPV?

  • txgho1911

    I cannot believe it would be impossible for the F22 to not be capable of tail-hook and cat compatibility. Orders for >900 cut down to 187 units seems suicidal with China and Russia actively developing an equivalent.
    This platform may be a better tool for stations in Pacific and across the continents. Taiwan, Japan, and Israel could maybe use this plan much better than a slower lighter plane like the f16 and f35.

  • Victor_Purinton

    and I hope this plane succeeds.

  • smagar

    ..if the local liberals block the F35 from coming here.

    Is it possible that the Air Force will NOT choose to bring the F35 here? If so, what does that do to the future of DMAFB?