36 ms·
F-35 Program Cutting Corners to “Complete” Development
- a2tech 8y agoAre we surprised? This project has been a giant boondoggle for over a decade(!)
- torstenvl 8y agoAt least it's not two decades with fake tests, like the Bradley.
- spyspy 8y agoAs always, this scene[0] from The Pentagon Wars remains relevant. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
- Someone1234 8y agoIt lost in an air to air trial to an older aircraft, and they covered it up. Are you sure?
- greedo 8y agoIt wasn't a "trial", whatever that means. It was a test flight, with parameters that the critics have no knowledge of.
- Someone1234 8y agoAnd they tried to cover it up. Plus they could have released anything that helped make the aircraft look less deficient, they didn't. Just tried to hide the test and pretend it didn't occur.
- greedo 8y agoTried to cover it up? It's an unclassified report from the test pilot. Not really intended for public disclosure, but this isn't the Pentagon Papers. And the author of the article has an axe to grind against almost all of the military. He left out most of the in that mitigated the story he's been pushing for a decade.
- engi_nerd 8y agoThat wasn't a trial of air-to-air combat. It was a control law test of the F-35. An F-16 aircraft, which was already being used during the mission as a "chase" aircraft for test execution safety reasons, was also used by the F-35 pilot as a visual reference. There was no coverup. Rather, the reporter who was sent the document and wrote about it simply didn't have the engineering knowledge to understand what he was reading, nor did he ask anyone experienced with flight testing to review what he had been sent and what he had written.
- Bartweiss 8y ago> It was a control law test of the F-35. Could you explain this, or point me to a link? I don't know the term and I'm having trouble searching it since the words are so common, but I'd love to see a proper breakdown of what was being tested.
- engi_nerd 8y agoSure. The F-35 is a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, which means that computers are required to direct the movements of the control surfaces. The engineering and mathematics here is not my area (my flight test experience lies in data acquisition, instrumentation, and data analysis/reduction) but I do know that the computers run software -- control laws -- that take the pilot's instructions as inputs, observe the dynamics of the airplane, and issue control commands to the surfaces to execute the inputs.
- Someone1234 8y agoThe document was the opinion of the F-35 pilot just to be clear. Here's a direct quote from the pilot: > The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There are multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him # > The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. The original documents can be read here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-... Perhaps you're going to claim the pilot themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either? PS - This resulted in mechanical changes to the aircraft as well as changes to the headset resulting in millions more in expenditure.
- digi_owl 8y agoWhy fake one vehicle when you can fake a whole exercise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- torstenvl 8y ago"Fake a whole exercise"? Where are you getting that idea? Such a conclusion is not supported by any evidence in the linked article.
- digi_owl 8y agoErr, when it didn't get the outcome the brass wanted they reset the whole event and set strict rules on the red side.
- torstenvl 8y agoYes. That is how these things work. Anything less would be irresponsible. I feel like we're talking past each other. I don't understand your point of view. Let's say I'm doing a platoon-sized exercise over the course of two weeks. I've been training my platoon on some basic maneuvers like fixing and flanking, rushing machine gun nests, some patrolling, etc. The first night, the Red platoon ambushes my Blue platoon while they're on patrol. Red platoon does a great job thinking on their feet, Blue assaulted through the ambush per doctrine and did a good job of it, but Red platoon knew the doctrine too and exploited a weakness. Got it. Red won. However, we still need Blue to get some experience patrolling, and we definitely need them to have experience reacting to a linear ambush like they'll be facing in a couple months when we deploy. The fact that the Red team used a complex ambush with an IED and an extra machine gun oriented down the MSR is irrelevant. We still need to make sure the SOP works and that Blue can execute it. So I order Red team to use some linear ambushes to see how Blue does. Explain to me how this is a fake test. Explain to me how this is somehow a waste of taxpayer money, or training time, or pro-Blue-platoon propaganda. Because to me it sure as heck looks exactly like what you should do in an exercise.
- lione 8y ago
- zipwitch 8y agoIs it really a boondoggle though? I mean, it keeps the defense industry rolling, gives the military something to fly, politicians and the media something to talk about, and it's more or less capable of bombing third worlders who can't effectively shoot back. Did the people who green lit it, paid for it, and made it honestly expect anything more?
- Analemma_ 8y agoIt's a boondoggle in the sense that the one point five trillion dollars could've been spent to better use on almost literally anything else.
- quasse 8y ago> it keeps the defense industry rolling, gives the military something to fly, politicians and the media something to talk about, and it's more or less capable of bombing third worlders who can't effectively shoot back That sounds like the literal definition of a boondoggle. "work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value."
- ocschwar 8y agoThe F-35 will be complete when the enemy says it's complete.
- village-idiot 8y agoWhat's the worst that can happen?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- astrodust 8y agoWar breaks out. Divide by zero error. Air supremacy handed to enemy.
- cpeterso 8y agoArthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority" depicts what can happen in an arms race if one side never stops racing to introduce new technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story) http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html
- yourapostasy 8y agoNever get tired of re-reading that short story. The story also re-stipulates the quote very likely misattributed to Stalin, but likely is from Thomas A. Callaghan Jr.: Quantity has a quality all its own. While provenance of the quote is tricky [1] [2], it is generally accepted the US leans towards the "quality" side of the spectrum. This shouldn't be an issue with the purported ideals of the US, unless the US finds itself precipitating a hot war by the MIC and neo-conservative foreign policy establishments with a numerically superior foe. I'm personally for a "tick-tock" release schedule into a Swiss defensive posture: ratchet up quality in one period, then in the next period distribute the quality gains into a massive materiel and training dispersal program focused on defense of the nation's land itself. [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&oldid=1993027#Misattributed https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&old... [2] https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Quantity-has-a-quality-all-it...
- batbomb 8y agogotta get that sprint burnt down
- _verandaguy 8y ago90% complete, 90% to go
- rrggrr 8y agoThe only difference between the F-35 program and the Fed's quantitative easing programs is that the F-35 program provided significant benefit to main street businesses and households. In all other respects both policies were designed to protect companies deemed too big to fail. Boeing had the better solution for the next generation fighter, but LM had the greater need and its interests prevailed.
- gnu8 8y agoThe F-35 project is (so far) the ultimate expression of our permanent war economy which has propped up the United States since the end of world war 2. As such it is no less misguided than QE since the object of this type of military spending is to consume excess production. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in a final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”
- gazsp 8y agoWho's the quote from?
- Someone1234 8y agoDwight D. Eisenhower
- twunde 8y agoI believe it's from Eisenhower's "Chance for Peace" speech, one of his two major speeches against military spending. The other major speech was his farewell address, where he discussed the military industrial complex. If anyone's interested, I'd highly suggest watching Why We Fight, a documentary from 2005
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ryanackley 8y ago
- sevensor 8y agoThe biggest design problem is a failure of conception: > The Pentagon sold Congress on the F-35 in part with the idea of creating a common aircraft for three services, alleging it would save money—despite the well-documented and glaring failure of the tri-service F-111 program 25 years before Congress signed off on the very same plan with the F-35 in 2001 The idea that the STOVL variant would have significant parts commonality with the others despite having a giant fan in the middle was pretty laughable right from the start. In general, three aircraft with three very different design mission profiles were not going to be able to share much without making bad compromises.
- Someone1234 8y agoAbsolutely. And the depressing part is that SOME parts still could have been shared between the different aircraft even in a more modest proposal (e.g. warfare systems). They just decided to go that extra mile, and wind up with an aircraft that likely won't ever save money and is too complex for its own good. I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone swarms from here on out.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoMy gut feeling is the US got lucky, with a high chance of drones after the F-35. France (Rafaele) and Germany (Eurofigher) might not be so lucky and need another manned fighter in between. UK with a F-35 / Eurofighter mix not clear to me.
- robin_reala 8y agoBAE’s building the Tempest for the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Tempest
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- r00fus 8y ago
- paulsutter 8y agoMaybe it is time to declare victory and move on. Except, they have no apparent plans to move on to something more sensible.
- scottlocklin 8y agoMy favorite F35 hack: just buy whatever the latest out of Sukhoi is. It will be cheaper and work better, and we can afford more of them than the Russians can. Hey, we do it for everything else!
- Scramblejams 8y agoYou're in good company. US Navy Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist (Ret) had the same idea as you: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695515/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695515/posts
- strictnein 8y agoPerfect plan, if you want a good plane for target practice for the F-22 and F-35. Or if you need to test your radar systems against something and you can't find a Piper Cub. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircra...
- scottlocklin 8y agoHas the US ever managed to shoot down even an old Su-27? Guessing the answer is no. F22 might do it. F35, only in a beyond visual situation. Remember in Vietnam when the doctrine was that missiles were so good all combat would happen BVR? Yeah, it's not gonna happen now either.
- strictnein 8y agoAre you serious right now? An F-22 "might" take out an Su-27? And the F-35 just simply wouldn't? This isn't 1968. That was 50 years ago. Things have changed ever so slightly. Your knowledge of things seems to extend little past lines in Top Gun.
- scottlocklin 8y agoI've written extensively on the topic, under my real name even. Pierre Sprey, one of the fighter mafia guys who came up with our Gen-4 fighters agrees with me. Who are you?
- Nokinside 8y agoF-35 program is in large part complex software project but it's not just any software project - it's a large software integration, sensor integration project with many suppliers and interfaces - it includes incredibly advanced logistics, inventory, health and maintenance software ALIS that is essential for the program's success. Without ALIS F-35 can't keep readiness and availability needed - It's technically bleeding edge: augmented reality, mesh networking, ... (bleeding edge is rarely painless) - almost everything is safety critical or at least mission critical. The project has so much momentum and so much sunken cost that it may take a decade to see if it can really deliver. The ultimate test will be a high sortie rate mission that lasts few weeks. Lockheed engineers (civilians) are now on site doing custom work and repairs for individual parts to make the planes fly. If operational tempo increases, it's likely that the system can't keep up.
- antpls 8y agoAnd yet, if you ask anyone in the street about what they think about "complex systems", I bet most of them would have a negative sentiment. (if anyone knows a study that goes in that direction, please share). A smartphone is arguably a complex system, but there are thousands variants of them, and new evolutions appear every month globally. To me, the whole military industry looks like an hoax (not solving any real modern world problem), and the citizen pays it with their taxes.
- ptero 8y agoThose are all nice words, but I doubt reality will resemble marketing. First, it is already old (first flight in 2006). Those sensors, augmented reality, mesh networks and such are unlikely to be bleeding edge by now. We may already have better options, but they probably cannot be swapped in because safety, because it is such a complex mess and of course because secrecy. Second, successful aircraft (efficient, envelope pushing, not money guzzling) are designed quickly by a relatively small team empowered to break barriers or ignore red tape. Look for example at Skunk Works, their products and their timeline. F-35 is opposite: a multi-national, multi-service monster with bureaucracy, oversight and special interests that alone will drive good engineers away. Sorry, it is just a feeding trough. Let's finish what absolutely must be finished and limit our losses before it acquires another zero in the total price tag. My 2c.
- logfromblammo 8y agoOh... they're just now cutting corners? I think the problem may have been they added too many stupid corners to begin with.
- aurailious 8y agoThis program is going to end up like the M-16. Even after its flaws are fixed the reputation isn't going to be shaken off. People still see the M-16 as unreliable even as its the most common form factor used by militaries today. Ironically the AK-47 wasn't as reliable in its initial iterations and now its simplicity is its only major advantage today. Currently a lot of the flaws of the F-35 program have been fixed. Even the cost per fighter is reasonable now, its approaching a sub $100M cost per aircraft. Its a much better plane than its contemporaries, and its costs are in the same category. Designing an advanced fighter aircraft in the 21st century is hard and expensive. Designing one to do 3 roles and built in the thousands is even harder. But its easier and cheaper than the alternatives. The F-35 is going to end up being a good aircraft and will fulfill what it was designed to do.
- stupidcar 8y agoSorry, I don't follow miltech stuff very closely. Which of its alternatives have cost more than $1.5 trillion?
- StuffMaster 8y agoSorry, but why are you asking?
- aurailious 8y agoEach F-35 costs about $100M now. When you want to compare the entire project scope, you should also account for how many planes have been planned to build. Because that $1.5T number includes purchases and lifetime expenses. About 3000 planes and decades of use. Strictly measuring the R&D places the program at $50B. A price tag that includes making virtually 3 kinds of planes for more than a dozen operators. So when you say its cost $1.5T, then try to point to alternatives, I'd have to ask, which other alternative planes have had 3000 constructed and then operated over the course of its life in the past 2 decades? What exactly are you trying to compare that $1.5T number to? Do you want to compare this to the Rafale, of which there are only 150? To use a metaphor: I went out and bought 10 bags of apples for $100, but that guy only needed to spend $10 for his bag of oranges.
- lbriner 8y agoVery scary but also a reminder of the high cost of politics and agreements and strong personailities and "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't" I was reading earlier about the UK saying they were going to buy 150 of them at $100M a pop. Probably already signed the agreement and then will get the shock of the service pricing and the idea that once you have it, it costs you more to mothball and replace than to keep paying good money after bad. Shudder.
- arethuza 8y agoWouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't in the process of completing two carriers that can only be used with the F-35B as they don't have CATOBAR capabilities - so far that's over $10 billion just on the ships.
- rjsw 8y agoWe don't want CATOBAR, using STOV(R)L aircraft is cheaper in the long run.
- greedo 8y agoCATOBAR is far better in the long run. You can take off with more weapons/fuel, and bring back more of both instead of dumping them. The RN made a huge mistake in not putting in catapults and arresting gear.
- rjsw 8y agoNope. You need to keep much more fuel in reserve if doing arrested landings compared to vertical ones. You probably also need airborne refuelling provided from the carrier. Another extra cost comes from needing to keep practicing landings, plus trainers like the T-50 to learn how to do them. There is more chance of losing an aircraft in a landing accident too. Not needing to keep practicing landings means that the mix of F-35s and helicopters can be changed at short notice.
- 8y ago
- jakelarkin 8y agoF35 isn't so much a fighter jet as it is a political graft and jobs program, and in that light it's a smashing success.
- godzillabrennus 8y agoMilitary industrial complex for the win. In all seriousness, at least they aren’t putting more peaceful drug users in prison to make their money. That’s a much bigger problem IMHO than overspending on an obsolete airplane.
- DanBC 8y agoThat money being spent on the obsolete plane could instead be providing evidence based drug treatment, instead of letting people fall victim to the abstinence-based rehab schemes.
- madeuptempacct 8y agoAt the end of the day, they are going to put all the fancy gizmos on the more capable platform - the F-22, while keeping its more powerful radar. There is going to be an F-22E that will be able to deliver more ordinance than the F-35. There is going is going to be an F-22x which will get the F-35s IRST so that it can get around without emitting. Or maybe this will be a pod to avoid compromising stealth. Oh, and the A-10 isn't going anywhere.
- HappyRobot 8y agoDo you have a source on the F-22 variants? I thought that one of the things that locked us into the F-35 was the tear down of the F-22 production line. Can we still make F-22's?
- engi_nerd 8y agoWe cannot make an F-22 right now. A few years ago, Lockheed Martin was asked how much they thought it would cost to restart F-22 production. The cost was several billion dollars. Plus, the people with the intimate knowledge of how to build an F-22 are dispersed throughout the rest of the industry, retired, or deceased.
- engi_nerd 8y agoYou got a link to any of this, or are you just speculating?
- madeuptempacct 8y agoPurely speculating, but with some thought. The F-22 is innately stealthier, has better aerodynamics, and a better thrust-to-weight ratio. The A-10 has proven itself to be indispensable for CAS. Helicopters can't get there in time and are at more risk when getting in close. Not to mention that the Apache (and even the Russian MI-28) are much lighter armored, which is a factor when being shot at with heavy machine guns. No flares / chaff for that.
- 8y ago
- badrabbit 8y agoThis is possibly the biggest and most tragic case of Sunk-cost fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost I honestly think the american defense contractor industry poses a national security risk. In time of war,the country needs efficiency as much as capability and how much cash you burn through(even if you just print more money) can also decide who wins the war.
- black6 8y ago> I honestly think the american defense contractor industry poses a national security risk. Doubleplusagree. The military-industrial-intelligence axis and their cadre of lobbyists are forever heightening tensions around the world and greatly exaggerating domestic threats in efforts to sell more units and invent new ways to kill people and grab more of those taxpayer dollars.
- tomatotomato37 8y agoReal war (aka not fucking about in third world countries) does a really good job of weeding out this kind of behavior, once the bad actor's own property starts being targetted.
- tabtab 8y agoIn a real war you wouldn't have time to design a new replacement. Let's hope the enemy has its own boondoggles.
- jotm 8y agoI've always wondered why they don't reuse old frame designs with new materials and components. They're proven to fly well, so why a completely new design every damn time? Russia seems to do it with the SUs and MiGs...
- stcredzero 8y agoSeveral of these flaws, like the lack of any means for a pilot to confirm a weapon’s target data before firing, and damage to the plane caused by the tailhook on the Air Force’s variant, have potentially serious implications for safety and combat effectiveness. Tail hook? That 2nd one is pretty basic for a Navy carrier aircraft! Just how bad is it? Reading again and further, it's the Air Force plane, not the Navy plane: Testers have also identified an issue with the arresting hook on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional takeoff variant. The F-35A, like other Air Force aircraft, is equipped with a single-use tailhook for emergency-landing situations when the pilot suspects a braking failure. Testing on the F-35A’s tailhook began in 2016. Testing engineers found that the arresting hook is causing damage to the aircraft due to “up-swing.” It's a "just in case" piece of emergency equipment for emergencies. Not nearly as serious. I wonder if this article is a bit of a hit piece?
- strictnein 8y agoIt really reads that way. Stuff like this makes me think it is: > " F-35 test teams rated this a Category I “High” deficiency, but the Board downgraded it to Category II “High,” without any indication of whether plans exist to correct it." So they're both "High" but one group thought it was Category I and the other thought it was Category II? There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure.
- hguant 8y ago>There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure. Right, but take a look at the groups doing the categorization. The team that rated the issue Category I was the actual QA testing team, made up of engineers and aviators. The Board that downgraded it was made up of managers and bureaucrats, the majority of which, according to the article at least, have a vested interest in the process rather than the result. This reads to me as a Dilbert comic. Engineer: "We tested the product. It has these 111 critical defects, any one of which can destroy the product, or the user. These need to be fixed as soon as possible" PHB: "Would you call these fixes an upgrade to the current system?" Engineer: "Yes, in that it would upgrade the product to "not death to look at" PHB: Downgrades issue "Perfect. So we can fix it after we ship and charge an extra 40% as part of our exclusive upgrades contract"
- ex-pralite-monk 8y agoThere are problems and complaints with every weapon system: the P-51 Mustang was designed for high-altitude bomber escort but the original engine couldn't produce power > 15k feet. Oops. The British put a Rolls Royce engine in it and it was gold.
- kelvin0 8y ago"...Officials in the F-35 Joint Program Office are making paper reclassifications of potentially life-threatening design flaws to make them appear less serious..." Hey this must be the company where I used to work a while ago. QA finds a 'crash' enter it as 'showstopper' in BUG database. As time goes by PM slowly 'erodes' it to 'Major', then a few months later it's closed as 'will not fix'.
- dmh2000 8y agoThe article left out the part about the lightning rods : https://www.businessinsider.com/marines-order-lightning-rods-to-keep-their-f-35s-from-getting-fried-2018-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/marines-order-lightning-rods...
- Bucephalus355 8y agoThe F-35 has been a huge success for China. We funded everything, made every mistake in the book, and now the PLA can pick and choose the parts they like best and fold into their own, perhaps better working, model.
- browsercoin 8y agoThe F-35 initiatives for a "one platform for all branches" mirrors the F-4 Phantom and McNamara's push for standardized platform to emphasize on a perceived technologically advantage-guided missiles that made dogfighting rebundant.... We all know that played out in vietnam.... Now they are saying it's okay if the F-35 is beta, nobody can detect our stealth planes! Like the unshootable Nighthawk stealth bomber in Belgrade that was taken out by a SAM. Of course the f-22 has no equal but I wonder just how much this stealth edge is going to last. Somewhere someone is sitting on a slush fund to figure out (or have figured out already) how to detect stealth and counter measures.
- ben_utzer 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Defense