99 ms·

The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

• stuaxo 6y ago
  How much money has the UK wasted on these at the same time as implementing austerity ?
  • sorokod 6y ago
    Uk is committed to buy 48 but likely to go for 70. 48 x 90 = 4320 mil.$
• JabavuAdams 6y ago
  There's a claim in the article that it's too difficult to update the software on the F16s. Could someone (ideally with military aircraft software experience) comment on this? I don't understand -- I would think that software would be the easiest (but not necessarily cheapest) thing to upgrade. Computers have only gotten smaller and faster.
  • nonameiguess 6y ago
    I can't comment from the perspective of the F16 specifically, but from experience working on upgrade efforts of military and IC ground processing systems, the challenge is the legacy systems are very tightly coupled to the hardware. They make strong assumptions about register size and number, bus bandwidth, filesystem block size, all kinds of things that software developers rarely think about any more, but things that mean the software is only going to run on the hardware it's currently running on, and when the hardware vendor hasn't even sold that product for over a decade, I've seen government programs literally scrounge eBay to find replacement parts. So upgrading the software isn't just a matter of installing an upgrade. It's a total from the ground up rewrite and also requires new hardware.
    • uncoder0 6y ago
      Worked around F16's and F22's when I was in and can attest that this is the source of the issue for upgrades. Everything in the software is so tightly coupled to the hardware that updating the F16's would be a monumental effort. The difference between a 4th and 5th generation air frame are night and day in terms of software capabilities. Hell, even the different between 5th generation jets can be massive on the software side such as the gap between F22 vs F35 the later being far more advanced on the software side.
      • tandr 6y ago
        Please forgive my ignorance of military processes involved. Could that be addressed by old software trick of modularising components - software and hardware-alike - and rely on some extensive semi-open protocols to connect these? I think car manufacturers have faced that at some time in the past, even inside single manufacturer (not sure if they have solved it completely). Sounds like they need Ada-like project, but for hardware side.
        • tablespoon 6y ago
          Full disclosure: I don't work in defense, but I've read Wikipedia. >>> I can't comment from the perspective of the F16 specifically, but from experience working on upgrade efforts of military and IC ground processing systems, the challenge is the legacy systems are very tightly coupled to the hardware. They make strong assumptions about register size and number, bus bandwidth, filesystem block size, all kinds of things... >> Worked around F16's and F22's when I was in and can attest that this is the source of the issue for upgrades. Everything in the software is so tightly coupled to the hardware that updating the F16's would be a monumental effort. > Could that be addressed by old software trick of modularising components - software and hardware-alike - and rely on some extensive semi-open protocols to connect these? I think the military has already done that to a degree, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1553 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1553 (serial data bus) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1750A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1750A (16-bit ISA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16 (tactical radio communication) It sounds like there are two issues: 1) protocols and standards themselves can become obsolete, so it's like updating Apple II DOS to read a ZFS array (or a modern Mac to work with 5 1/4 floppy drives).
• StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  I wonder if that also means that they are going to cut funding to the astroturfers who show up in every thread in every forum on every post singing the praises of the F-35 now.
  • knolax 6y ago
    This has got to be my favorite astroturfing conspiracy. Imagine the US government paying people to convince the oh so important programmers at HackerNews that their jet fighter is effective.
    • StanislavPetrov 6y ago
      If that's you're favorite astroturfing conspiracy, what's your favorite astroturfing reality? Was it Microsoft astroturfing blogs in 2014? https://www.pcworld.com/article/2365060/microsoft-caught-astroturfing-bloggers-again-to-promote-internet-explorer.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/2365060/microsoft-caught-ast... Or perhaps it was astroturfing of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America? https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2016/02/new-patient-advocacy-group-outed-minnesota-based-website-astroturf-campaign/ https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2016/02/new-patient-... Or perhaps the energy industry? https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/energy-utility-entergy-astroturfing-nola/ https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/energy-utility... But certainly its an unhinged conspiracy that government and the military would push their own narratives via astroturfing. Everyone knows they have far too much respect for how they spend our taxpayer dollars and they have far too much integrity to be so devious. Certainly all of the stalwart defenders of the F-35 that pop up on every internet forum and message board to sing the praises of that boondoggle must be sincere.
      • knolax 6y ago
        They might not be sincere but part of me is becoming tempted to start defending The F-35 just to get a rise out of people like you.
• digi59404 6y ago
  “The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a race. Just like you don’t bring your Ferrari to the farm to haul material (not anymore anyways). The F-35 may be a Ferrari; but the thing about Ferraris is that their technology trickles down. Now we have electric cars with carbon fiber shells. The same is true for the F-35. The technology inside it has and will lead to the resurrection and long standing use of older planes like the B1 and U2. Where the airframe is solid but the tech and stealth is not. It will also lead to revolutionary new planes which are cheaper to make and build. Through the F35s use of distributed computing and treating hardware components and their software as services, we’re not going to be doomed to the same fate as the F16 where we can’t find hardware. Instead, we’ll have more component oriented aircraft systems where each aircraft is no bespoke and can use from a menu of technologies. So did the F35 fail because we spent too much? Depends on how much it saves us later. Did it fail because it didn’t replace the F16? What if it makes the F16 viable again? Did it still fail? Some may see this as a slippery slope. What matters is the objective outcome that comes from this project. Not the success criteria some folks have perpetuated or thrust upon the project.
  • ahelwer 6y ago
    This reads word-for-word like an email from a PM to management talking about how their project that imploded embarrassingly has so many intangible future benefits that really, it's a huge success when you think about it.
    • s0rce 6y ago
      Exactly, unless those were the upfront deliverables of the projects, its a failure. Sure, not all the effort was 100% completely wasted but the goal didn't get achieved.
    • digi59404 6y ago
      No - I doubt any PM would write what I said. What I said is more a IC in tech saying "Sure, what the PM asked for an laid out was X. But really, in the middle we found out the architecture didn't work as expected. So we pivoted and in doing so found more success using Y's Suggested Architecture" Innovation and Tech is messy. More often than not, Your definition of success changes as time goes on as you get further into a project that's groundbreaking.
• ElMono 6y ago
  I would guess that the NGAD prototype[0] has given USAF leadership confidence to publicly alude to F-35 shortcomings. [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34030586/air-force-secret-new-fighter-jet/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34030586...
  • digi59404 6y ago
    The NGAD Prototype is built upon some of the technology that the F-35 pioneered. The F-35 now is and has been used as an airframe to test more advanced technologies. Like distributed computing and autonomous technologies. So, it's reasonable to say that NGAD may not be possible if it weren't for the F-35. I'd argue this is less about the F-35's shortcomings and more about the fact that we're seeing a dramatic change in air war-machine design, development, and theory. In defense news below, you can see them speak (in meta) about how the NGAD Prototype was built. Some of those things were pioneered on the F-35. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/ https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-...
    • CharlesW 6y ago
      Having also seen your comments elsewhere this thread, I'm wondering: Did you have a personal stake in the F-35? "Failed" things nearly always embody good and great ideas that go on to be used in successful things. For example, the Newton was clearly a failure, and yet there are echos of it all over today's phones and tablets.
    • samstave 6y ago
      >*Like distributed computing and autonomous technologies.* Can you expound on this? Why is distributed computing neeeded - is it simply such that "if hit in this location, there are backups that can handle the load?" For autonomous, what relief does this bring to the pilot? Targeting? Nav? Trim?
  • greedo 6y ago
    Well, if USAF want a "cheaper 5th minus" fighter, the NGAD is going almost the opposite direction.
• gumby 6y ago
  Why order more F-16s and miss out on all the rich contracting and design deal flow? Plus because the length of development is longer than pharma's, nobody involved in kicking off the project will be around to deal with the deployment problems. Make hay while the sun shines.
  • nindalf 6y ago
    The F-16 was introduced in 1978 and no new F-16s have been purchased since 2001. Are you suggesting that they don't want new F-16s in 2021 because ... they want to make money? Isn't the simpler explanation that maybe a 42-year old design is out of date?
    • tandr 6y ago
      B52 is even older, and still kicking (I think...)
      • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        They're planning to retire it after 95 years of service.
        • tandr 6y ago
          I think sea ships have less lifetime than these frames... I guess designers of B52 did a hella good job. Akin Nasa folks who have sent Mars rover "for just a couple months" :)
    • gumby 6y ago
      > Are you suggesting [...] they want to make money? Isn't the simpler explanation that maybe a 42-year old design is out of date? I'm sorry I was too pithy. To answer your second question first: Old aircraft are not inherently bad. The most famous case is the B-52, already in its sixties and when the current round of refurbishment completes (if it hasn't already) should continue fighting with airframes over a century old. The A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog) is still in service despite many attempts to kill it as there is no replacement. (Old aircraft aren't inherently good either; even the Harrier, despite being heavily used and not really having a replacement, eventually became too expensive to maintain) The F-16 was brought up specifically in the article; the claim was that it is too difficult to upgrade its electronics, not that the airframe or engine were obsolete. Indeed the specific use case a new plane is being considered for is the kind of thing where an older, airworthy craft would be better (the station wagon vs Ferrari example from the article). So for your first question, money: yes I am explicitly suggesting that. Without getting into the politics of consolidation in the US arms industry, since the B-1, weapons production has been structured in part as a jobs program (The B-1 was the first weapons system to explicitly have had its supply chain structured to have parts made in 100% of all congressional districts) while the purchasing procedures are so complex that they require ex military on the private sector side just to make them viable. That revolving door is not subject to any lobbying rules and is, TBH the only real retirement plan for senior officers below three star rank. And of course spending money on arms is always popular with the voters, as part of the "support the troops" slogan, even though the actual troopers, humans, get low pay, mixed-quality post-service health care (some amazingly excellent, other terrible) and are not protected against the depredations any number of predatory corporations while in the service. Oh, but that shiny gear shows off as well in the USA as it does in norks. To be more charitable, generals and admirals also always want to push for the new and shiny because that's how they demonstrate status, in war and especially in peacetime. This is a social factor in all groups, this is merely how it manifests in military hierarchies world wide. Doesn't mean it's an effective use of funds nor that it necessarily improves warfighting (much less prevents it).
• toddh 6y ago
  The time of planes has ended and the time of drones has begun it has.
  • hctaw 6y ago
    You still have to shoot down a fighter jet to disable it. An enemy can't hack the pilot remotely and safely land it on their own air strips, which has happened with drones.
    • jlkuester7 6y ago
      That seems like all the more reason to invest more in our cyber-warfare/security capabilities instead of dumping the money in machines designed to carry meat-bags.
      • hctaw 6y ago
        we dump money into both
      • tablespoon 6y ago
        > That seems like all the more reason to invest more in our cyber-warfare/security capabilities instead of dumping the money in machines designed to carry meat-bags. We're talking about nation-state on nation-state hacking here. The kind of investment you're talking about would have to be absolutely massive, and even then it still might not do the job. And even if that kind of investment in cyber-warfare/security capabilities is undertaken, the military isn't going to stop "dumping the money in machines designed to carry meat-bags" until after it's very clear the investment was successful. It's not realistic for a first rate to take the kind of risk you're talking about if it wants to remain first rate.
    • moistbar 6y ago
      If the plane is connected to anything else, it can be hacked. Just because it hasn't been reported yet doesn't mean it's impossible or even that it hasn't happened.
• fallingfrog 6y ago
  Probably the issue is that during wartime (and I think the Cold War counts) the object of a weapons program is to defend one’s country, whereas in the absence of any major foe the object of a weapons program is to spend money. From that standpoint the program was a spectacular success.
  • thrill 6y ago
    And the counterpoint is that spending money correctly is what prevents wartime with major foes.
    • bluGill 6y ago
      Fine in theory. In practice you know only in hindsight if you spent the money incorrectly. If you spend your money correctly that looks just like spending your money incorrectly and getting lucky in hindsight. So we end up with a lot of politics where people say "I'm right, because [insert some factor that may or may not be relevant]", and then argue about who is right.
    • salawat 6y ago
      I disagree, if anything, it just escalates the resulting conflict when it inevitably goes hot again. Conflict never stops, it just becomes indiscernable from diplomacy.
• fallingfrog 6y ago
  Interestingly enough Wikipedia says that the request for proposals for the F16 happened in January 1972 and the first completed fighter was accepted in January 1979. That’s 7 years, without the use of computers.
  • madhadron 6y ago
    The F-16 is as very interesting case and it's worth reading about it. It was intentionally built to be a single role aircraft and the people who wanted an effective airplane in that role effectively bypassed most of the politics that would have diluted it. So, yes, the F-16 is one of the great success stories of fighter plane development.
    • rootusrootus 6y ago
      I have an interesting old book (which is falling apart, sadly) about the F-16 and it's an interesting comparison with the main competitor at the time, the YF-17, which ultimately became the basis on which the F/A-18 was developed. Both very successful designs.
      • madhadron 6y ago
        Title and author? Sounds really interesting.
        • rootusrootus 6y ago
          It is this one: https://smile.amazon.com/General-Dynamics-F-16-Aero-26/dp/0816805962 https://smile.amazon.com/General-Dynamics-F-16-Aero-26/dp/08...
          • madhadron 6y ago
            Thanks!
    • GekkePrutser 6y ago
• sep_field 6y ago
  United States deserves to die. Fuck capitalist imperialism. The plane served its purpose in transferring wealth from the AmeriKKKan taxpayer to the pockets of the defense contractors. AmeriKKKan capitalism at its finest. You all got what you deserved.
• hyko 6y ago
  The test of a combat aircraft is in combat. Nobody will give a fuck what the programme cost or that it couldn’t do X if it gives you a decisive advantage in war. It’s fashionable to hate on the F-35, but let’s face it: if the allies have to establish air superiority somewhere in the world, they will be using F-35s to do so, and I’m not aware that anyone has the platform to stop them.
  • jbob2000 6y ago
    Empires fall from within. Yes, nobody will stop the US with military, and nobody would try because that's not how you win. You don't need a big military to crush the fragile supply chain that a plane like this demands.
    • hyko 6y ago
      I don’t really understand this line of reasoning; it’s not like the person bearing the most rudimentary weapons is at an advantage? What’s the plan, lose in aerial combat but win in a fist fight? Who says it has a fragile supply chain anyway? It certainly has a complex one, but then so do things like nuclear weapons and nobody is clamouring to abandon them on that basis. Protecting that chain and the logistics around it is a staple of military operations. It’s not like someone is going to surprise them by going after supply chains.
      • rurounijones 6y ago
        I think the point is that if you want to harm a nation you have various avenues of attack of which overt military action is only one. If the US is unbeatable militarily then you, as a poorer advesary, don't try to match it, you use one of the other avenues like causing political de-stabilisation for example, interfere with elections maybe. Therefore is the military persuing "perfect" at high expense instead of "good enough" at a lower expense which would still be good enough to fulfil its requirements.
  • inglor_cz 6y ago
    My question would be: if you buy N drones for price of one F-35, do you get better military value for your money or not? At the very least, N drones can't be destroyed at once (unless stored really carelessly) and can be individually specialized in a way that provides wider spectrum of capabilities. A massive bonus: pilotless aircraft can perform manoeuvres unsurvivable for humans, and the ability to maneuver was always a strong point in the air.
• tyingq 6y ago
  Given the type of both recent and predicted conflicts that the US has been involved with, it's not 100% clear to me that the US needs yet another aircraft. That is, fighting in proxy wars or fighting in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria don't need anything new. And fighting a sophisticated enemy would probably ramp up to nuclear deterrents and diplomacy anyway...fighters wouldn't make a notable difference in that kind of war. Won't happen, but it seems like they should just buy fighters from allies where the F-35 isn't a good fit.
  • ProAm 6y ago
    You're not thinking about the other wars we want to fight after the wars we are currently fighting now.
    • tyingq 6y ago
      Sorry...what countries?
      • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        China, so we can defend Taiwan without having to go nuclear to do it. Russia, over the rest of the Ukraine. Perhaps Iran, if we have to stop their nuclear program by force, or some other contingency.
        • tyingq 6y ago
          I just don't see the US fighting China or Russia in a direct, conventional weapons conflict. How does it not escalate?
          • ProAm 6y ago
            Doesn't matter if its direct or another proxy war, its still war.
            • 6y ago
• supernova87a 6y ago
  I guess along the way, the activity of designing and building the plane became more important than the outcome / functionality of the plane itself. You see it all the time in projects. People look busy and seem like they're building things, so some progress must be happening. Or is it? Blink an eye, and in a couple years you unwittingly accumulated a platform that served to fulfill every random team's desire to load on requirements, systems, electronics, sensors ("go find out what people want!"), with very few people making the countervailing decision to trade off / cut things for an overall desired outcome ("what do they actually demonstrate -- not say -- they need?"). Well, they didn't have to pay for it, so there was no harm in giving their requirements. And if the actual willing payor (Congress) had little incentive (or technical chops) to be ruthless about costs or actual useful output, well then there's few checks on that happening. Until some top level general says, "why aren't these hugely expensive planes being used like we thought they would be?" Too late. I guess it kept people employed in the meantime. How can you cut 10% of the workforce in Huntsville when the representative sits on the Armed Services committee? (I don't know that, but just for example...) Which, sometimes, is a national goal in itself for strategic purposes. It might be good though, to have a more deliberate plan about these kinds of things, if that's the goal.
  • StLCylone 6y ago
    "the activity of designing and building the plane became more important than the outcome / functionality of the plane itself." Yes. After a while was it about building the plane or keeping the aerospace industry employed and engaged? The design tried to do everything for everyone and fulfill every Colonel's dream feature and mission. Its the ultimate story of feature creep.
    • ldbooth 6y ago
      Like the smartphone phenomenon. They need to sell you something, so they sell you on useless features. And it works! My flip phone is in the mail. They got me regressing too.
    • hef19898 6y ago
      Youhave to maintian the industrial base, so. To maintain the stuff for the next decades and replace any losses. Hard during peace time. In preparation of a war of attritition against an equal oponent close to impossible. How do you maintain the necessary base to produce hundreds of jets, F-35s or whatever Gen 5, once all have been delivered? That aspect alone is critical for the success of such a weapon system. It doesn't help to have a couple of hundred Gen 6 fighters if you cannot replace them in a war against someone who can replace his gen 4/4+ jets.
• decafninja 6y ago
  My armchair general understanding is that the requirement of the F-35B variant is responsible for a whale sized portion of the F-35's woes?
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > My armchair general understanding is that the requirement of the F-35B variant is responsible for a whale sized portion of the F-35's woes? The desire for commonality between the A/B/C variants (notionally to reduce cost) is the big driver, but the B (STOVL) variant probably has the most difficult individual requirements.
• rayhendricks 6y ago
  It did not fail at providing money to the military-industrial-congressional complex. But of course we need more fighter jets instead of Medicare for all and UBI. China is not going to send fighters over to Bomb the us mainland, this thing is totally unnecessary.
  • missedthecue 6y ago
    The total costs to keep all F-35s in the air until 2070 (likely after you and I are dead and in the ground), would not even cover 6 months of Medicare for all or UBI. Not sure how you can draw such an equivalence.
    • thanatosmin 6y ago
      Just the acquisition costs would cover the entire NIH budget for a decade, though.
      • missedthecue 6y ago
        That wasn't the comparison being made
    • lakecresva 6y ago
      How are you calculating the cost of medicare for all?
      • missedthecue 6y ago
        I just took Bernie Sander's estimate, which looks like it comes from Yale. His website says $4.7 Trillion per year. But you can really take any estimate out there, and it wouldn't change my point. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-maj...
  • cwhiz 6y ago
    You could take the entire defense budget, and the defense budget from every other country in the world, and you would be less than 50% of the funding you would need for a single year of Medicare for all. The US spends about $3.6 trillion per year on health care. I have no idea what UBI might cost, but I know we don’t have the tax revenues to get even close. Maybe the money printer can go brrrr a little bit faster.
• vhcd 6y ago
  Wasn't the goal of the F-35 to sell an inferior aircraft to allies and keep the F-22 for the real action? I don't know the sales figures, but it may have been a success using those metrics.
  • GekkePrutser 6y ago
    Allies have cut back on the F-35 orders too on about the same scale. But no I don't think it was ever planned to replace the F-22. The F-22 is really an interceptor, the F-35 is much more multirole like the F-16.
    • angry_octet 6y ago
      Exactly. It's like: F-15 -> F-22 + some F-35 F-16 -> F-35 F-18 -> F-35 carrier version AV-8B -> F-35 STOVL It is unfortunately compromised in weight by needing to do the carrier role. But on the flip side, the extra strength in the fuselage means they could last a long time.
• abarringer 6y ago
  If the primary purpose was to funnel money from you -> .mil -> military industrial complex it succeed wildly beyond all expectations. Otherwise not so much. I lived and worked very close to Eglin Air Force base where all the initial F35's went. Many Air Force people thought the primary design decisions were to spend money and little else.
  • usrusr 6y ago
    But there's a reason to funnel that money besides padding pockets: the nominal reason (and not a bad one if you are not a full pacifist) is to retain development capability for the next time you actually do need a military aviation innovation burst. And arguably this wasn't really successful. Chances are that rebuilding capability from a hypothetical starved state would yield better results than restoring efficiency from the comically fattened state they got.
    • craftinator 6y ago
      > the nominal reason (and not a bad one if you are not a full pacifist) is to retain development capability for the next time Is the F-35 a good example of what we want our next aircraft to be? It seems to me that we now have a whole development infrastructure set up to build expensive, buggy aircraft. That "development capability" that we've retained isn't a good one.
      • usrusr 6y ago
        Exactly what I meant. The money funneling has a valid purpose beyond actual aircraft, but as it stands it doesn't really serve that purpose.
• nvoid 6y ago
  >With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive Why say including the engine? Do they sell them without the engine?
  • rjsw 6y ago
    That is how the US military accounts for them, yes. The engine is not included in the price paid to Lockheed Martin.
    • nvoid 6y ago
      Oh interesting. Can they get them with a different engine? Like an add-on when buying your car. Maybe like a sport mode?
      • onepointsixC 6y ago
        At the time they were the best production engines in the world. General Electric originally was competing with the Pratt and Whitney engine F-135, called the F-136 but that was since canceled. However they're is the GE Adaptive Cycle Engine that has since been developed which produces greater thrust while having the ability to also achieve greater fuel efficiency for greater range by changing it's characteristics.
• zafka 6y ago
  John Boyd and the defense reform movement pretty much predicted this outcome from the beginning.
• misiti3780 6y ago
  The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chance we could do something like that in this toxic environment of today. I know Peter Thiel is not popular here, but his conversations about technological progress seem to be spot on: we just cant build cool shit anymore. I really did want a flying car, and all I have is 140 characters and promises of AI that never come true. Maybe, you could say there are some exceptions like CRISPR, but that is TBD.
  • inglor_cz 6y ago
    SpaceX is an interesting exception. They innovate really fast, their pace resembles that of the positive examples you mention.
    • injidup 6y ago
      But SpaceX can can develop a tin can fast because it is not expected to have martians shooting at it. Imagine planning to go to Mars but your tin can had to be stealthy, manoeuvrable and armed to the teeth. You'd get Ripley's drop ship!
    • grecy 6y ago
      Agree 100% Literally all the "experts" said it was impossible to land the booster, and now it's almost routine. Nobody else in the industry can achieve what SpaceX have done successfully 40 times.
      • hef19898 6y ago
        Experts from EASA didn't say it was impossible, but rather not economicaly feasible. And with SpaceX not publishing any financials we have no way to tell which side is right.
• einpoklum 6y ago
  > The Air Force a generation ago launched development of an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s If that was the goal, then the moment the price tag on the F-35 was set, failure was admitted. According to this: https://www.investors.com/research/f35-fighter/ https://www.investors.com/research/f35-fighter/ the price of an F-35 is about 80 Million USD. An F-16 goes for 30 Million USD: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/24/lockheed-martin-scores-62-billion-f-16-sale/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/24/lockheed-martin-sc... Although it seems you can buy it used for 8.5 Million USD?? : https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/2020/07/24/f-16-fighting-falcon-for-sale-youl-never-guess-how-much-theyre-asking/ https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/2020/07/24/...
  • riku_iki 6y ago
    > An F-16 goes for 30 Million USD The first number in the article is Taiwan purchases 66 F-16 for 8 billions, which gives it 121 mln price tag.
• daed 6y ago
  This is not a new phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
  • dtx1 6y ago
    I thought about this immediately. Uncanny how similar the situation is
• bob_morton_1987 6y ago
  "I had a guaranteed military sale with ED209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not!" -- Dick Jones, Robocop.
• beckingz 6y ago
  This is just an attempt to get funding for aircraft that will be bad. Any new aircraft they develop to be cheaper will suffer the same scope and budget creep that the F-35 did. We won't send pilots out in planes that are known to have low survivability, so when the new aircraft is insufficiently stealthy/fast/survivable, more money will be spent to make it even worse than the F-35.
  • leoc 6y ago
    There's at least one proposal to get around this by adopting a foreign design like the Saab Gripen: http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/american-gripen/ http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/american-gripen/ . The US could rename it the Freedom Chimera and manufacture it under license in Kentucky to manage the politics.
    • greedo 6y ago
      I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... The Gripen is a fine aircraft, but introducing a foreign made aircraft into the USAF doesn't happen very often. I can only think of two examples, the Canberra bomber (B-57) and the Dauphin helicopter the Coast Guard bought in the 1980's. Plus new-build F-16s would be better at most roles than the Gripen.
• CivBase 6y ago
  > This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight. What exactly is a "low-end fight" when it comes to the USAF? Seems to me like the real problem is the F-35 was built to be a do-it-all plane when it would make far more sense to have a more varied fleet of more cost-effective, purpose-built aircraft.
  • mongol 6y ago
    I know nothing about this, but could it not be things such as patrolling? Lots of hours in the air with little expectation of combat, but with readiness if need arises?
  • medium_burrito 6y ago
    Low end fight is where we use drones and Super Tucanos (A29) and play "Aces over Afghanistan" (or wherever-Stan we go next). Purpose built aircraft are indeed better, and flexible cheap and reliable aircraft like Tucanos are the ideal solution for many scenarios.
    • hef19898 6y ago
      I do remember these discussions around FCAS, the French-German F-22 if you want. The concept called for a Gen 5+ stealth jet and supporting drones. The jet itself should also be a strike bomber. And then the official concept papers say, that these jets in engangement with comparable craft, will end up in close dog fights. Because both sides see each other rather late. In these dog fights, a dedicated air superiority jet will beat a multi-role strike bomber. They also want to have the strike bomber capabiliy covered by the drones. I was basically laughed at when I asked why the manned FCAS element would be anything else than a specialized dog fighter.
  • exar0815 6y ago
    Low end is Air to dirt against shepherds with rusty Kalashnikovs. The best plane for that is the A-10. Interestingly, exactly the plane the Army grunt and brass loves and the Air Force Brass wants to get it killed ASAP.
• exar0815 6y ago
  It's quite simple. The successfull military programs are the ones building one thing to do one thing well. A-10, F-16, B-52. The Programs wanting to do everything in one System fail. F-35, Zumwalt, Eurofighter.
  • HalfANut 6y ago
    I'm so glad you named these specific models/platforms. Thank you for your half-nut, as went with everyone else. Best post on Hacker News. Totally agreed.
  • hef19898 6y ago
    I wouldn't pu the Eurofighte rin there. It is working just fine for the Brits and others. And is still a rather capable fighter, even if more dedocated strike aircraft, e.g. Tornado or a strike eagle, are slightly better in these roles.
  • openasocket 6y ago
    I'm not sure how the F-16 is an example of "building one thing to do one thing well," it's a great example of a multi-role fighter. Almost all combat aircraft developed in the last 30 years are multi-role aircraft too. And by what metric the Eurofighter is a failure?
  • samstave 6y ago
    Two of my favorite craft in there - B52 and A-10 are two of the best aircraft ever made... Its just sad how the B52 was abused by the CIA in LAOS. The A-10 is just a robust vehicle, hence the namesake Wharthog
• protastus 6y ago
  > The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday It became a Ferrari due to feature creep and an enormously complex and expensive technology stack. The F-16 is not a Ferrari and NATO needs a multirole single-seat fighter that is affordable to purchase and fly. My most charitable view is the F-35 became a jobs program for Lockheed Martin and subcontractors. People were trained and (allegedly) useful technology was developed. But the price tag appears unreasonable by an order of magnitude, and this puts no accountability on the program management or people signing the checks. As for arguments about technology trickling down from the F-35: * The argument needs evidence. I've seen no attempt to identify the value of the technologies developed against the time and money spent. * Too much time was surely spent on integration and one-off details specific to the F-35 platform, and this is sunk cost unlikely to be recovered in future platforms designed by new teams.
  • noir_lord 6y ago
    The US has done this before, they had a winner with the F5E/F-20 Tigershark back in the day, they could have sold those to everyone but they killed the program to boost F16 sales. It was cheap to buy, cheap to run (like really cheap for the capability which in the case of the F20 matched F16’s of the era) but because the USAF didn’t want to buy them it got cut off at the knees. Damn thing has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.16 to 1 (it could accelerate in a vertical climb) and do Mach 2, largely because they shoved a single F18 engine in to replace the two much older engines the F5 had.
• dtx1 6y ago
  So, they did a bradley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
  • onepointsixC 6y ago
    That movie and the book it's based on are both wildly inaccurate and biased.
    • dtx1 6y ago
      You don't say! I would have thought this is a historic drama about the military industrial complex if you hadn't warned me!
• throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  They must have A/B tested the title to see what gets the most smug confirmation bias clicks (title is clearly not intended to optimize for outrage clicks so what else could it be). The whole article is about the history of the program, why it costs so much and what the options are going forward. If you squint you can make it seem like failure but the article does not make that claim.
  • jwond 6y ago
    > If you squint really hard you can make it seem like failure but the article does not make that claim. It does actually. Here are a couple of excerpts from the article that explicitly refer to it as a failure: > Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. > ... > But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35’s very concept.
• ktln2 6y ago
  F-35 is not expensive if you consider the alternatives: Brazil bought 36 JAS-39E for $5.8 billion. [1] Taiwan ordered 66 F-16V for $8.1 billion. [2] Korea is going to get 20 F-35A for $3.3 billion. [3] [1] https://www.flightglobal.com/saab-brazil-finalise-gripen-ng-deal/114942.article https://www.flightglobal.com/saab-brazil-finalise-gripen-ng-... [2] https://nationalinterest.org/feature/taiwans-f-16v-fighter-jet-purchase-why-it-matters-167566 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/taiwans-f-16v-fighter-j... [3] https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/10/10/south-korea-to-buy-20-more-f-35-jets/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/10/10/s...
  • Synaesthesia 6y ago
    Militarism is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
    • some_random 6y ago
      Well, that's not really what's being discussed here.
    • filoleg 6y ago
      Not when you have a few adversarial nation-states around the corner that do not consider it a waste of taxpayer money.
      • hctaw 6y ago
        A $10 billion investment in anti aircraft missiles that forces a $100 billion investment in aircraft instead of schools and semiconductor fabs is great ROI for an adversarial nation state that knows their government would be wiped off the face of the planet if they ever decided to use them.
        • ktln2 6y ago
          Modern AA missile systems are also very expensive - a S-400 battery cost you $500 million. [1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/19/russia-lures-buyers-as-s-400-missile-system-costs-less-than-us-models.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/19/russia-lures-buyers-as-s-400...
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• woeirua 6y ago
  This is just another sign that the US defense establishment has opened its eyes to the reality that the US could lose a war of attrition against a major power. We have focused too much on high tech weaponry, and we're now vulnerable to being overwhelmed by large numbers of low tech enemies. It doesn't matter if your fighters have a kill ratio of 10:1 if your enemy can replace those 10 fighters faster than each one of yours that you lose.
  • hef19898 6y ago
    And afford to replace them. Just take the UH-1, one engine helicopter of the Vietnam era. One engine, because a second one was considerd waste given the short service live of these birds in Vietnam. And now we have 100 million dollar jets...
  • onepointsixC 6y ago
    There are numerous problems with such logic: Just because you can replace those 10 fighters faster doesn't mean you can replace the pilots with equivalently good ones as quickly. Great power wars in the modern era will have some of the most decisive action happen far sooner than you can get into production capacity battles. At which point one side will lob several hypersonic missiles into the shipyards, factories, and fabs of their opponents and the ability to replace lost platforms will have been neutralized.
    • woeirua 6y ago
      You don't need to replace 10 excellent pilots with 10 good pilots to win a war of attrition. You just need 10 pilots that can fly, lock a missile and fire. Because if you're losing 10 planes to every 1 that you're killing the life expectancy of any pilot is going to be really low period. Counterpoints: 1 - Most critical infrastructure is located far inland away from areas that are vulnerable to cruise missiles and the like. 2 - Hypersonic missiles are mostly vaporware still today. Uncertain if people would even use them, as there's a significant risk of escalation to a full nuclear exchange. 3 - Critical infrastructure can be built faster today than it ever could be in the past. Most countries have stockpiles of critical strategic goods with the understanding that they would be able to stand up their own factories before those stockpiles were depleted.
• juancn 6y ago
  Why not just drop the manned fighters and develop drones instead?
  • angry_octet 6y ago
    You need to command them from close by, because anything else will be jammed. It needs to be an integrated concept with manned fighters, AEW&C, strike, etc.
    • hef19898 6y ago
      Like the European FCAS.
      • angry_octet 6y ago
        Yes but FCAS will take forever, repeating the mistakes of JSF by coupling everything in a giant program. The Chinese will have it by the end of the decade.
        • hef19898 6y ago
          FCAS will be a combination of the F-35, Eurofighter and A-400M. I'd put money on at least 15 years of delay. The Australians and Boeing have a fighter companion drone in the air already now. I didn#t follow that to closely, so. I also think that the manned component of FCAS, the fighter, might be ready earlier. And that fighter is everyting the French want from the program.
          • angry_octet 6y ago
            Boeing sees Loyal Wingman / ATS as a way to stay in the game when LM owns the only 5th gen western manned aircraft. The dual seat Super Hornet is a better control aircraft than the JSF and has a huge power budget. Boeing have also been careful with the ITAR aspects so they can sell it outside of primary US alliance countries. A system with Israeli or even Indian electronics is a possibility. I presume the French just want to save their aerospace industry. Before Corona Airbus was looking really screwed, with 777/787 being much more efficient than the A380, but with 737 MAX fiasco and limited intercontinental flights the A320neo is looking good. But I digress.
• post_break 6y ago
  I dunno Lockheed Martin managed to put out a banger so it's not a total loss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF7x0ZIFeVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF7x0ZIFeVc We at least got this instead of paying teachers more, or healthcare.
• wintorez 6y ago
  Over-engineering always fails.
• zabzonk 6y ago
  And from the UK's perspective, this useless aircraft has also driven the production of two useless aircraft carriers.
• OliverJones 6y ago
  Well, $100M for a device intended to be shot at! A device that's faster and slicker than everything else. That has a version that can fly vertically. If you're in the sf bay area, go take a tour of the SS Jeremiah O'Brien when things reopen. It's a WWII Liberty Ship freighter. They built well over 2000 of these things, fast, and cheap, to haul military stuff from continent to continent. They had to be fast to build: many were needed. They had to be reasonably cheap: the enemy sank many of them. And, look at the design of this here Hacker News web app. Functional. High capacity. Simple. Why can't US weapons factories build stuff like liberty ships and simple web sites, that work and are serviceable? Too many committees? Too many senators? Unwillingness to tell some branch of the service (the Marines) to use helicopters? Another branch (the Navy's aircraft-carrier service) to use purpose-built planes? I wonder if engineering and business schools should reintroduce this thing I was taught in college. "Any clod can build something heavy for a dollar. It takes skill and dedication to build something light for a quarter." Grumble.
  • thu2111 6y ago
    Arguably it is the wrong strategy, especially if the unspoken possibility of war with China becomes a spoken one. The USA has an edge in raw technological prowess. The F-35 plays to that strength, with tons of advanced technology that took a long time to master and develop. Setting up factories that can churn out cheap planes en-masse is certainly possible and if the USA found itself in a war of attrition it'd probably do that surprisingly fast. But why get into such a situation, in which the US would have no real advantage and perhaps some disadvantages, when it can compete on pure tech and build one plane that can take out many of the opponents cheap planes?
• tus89 6y ago
  > 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] The F-35 is not a fighter, it is a strike aircraft. It is big and heavy and bloated and would be eaten alive in air to air combat.
• adev_ 6y ago
  So on one side, we have a program that costed > 406.5 Billions (2017) [¹] for a failed jet. On the other side, we have the entire Apollo program that cost $156 billion (2018)[²], was stopped because too expensive. And we never have been able to go on the Moon since because "cost". Decisions that lead to the usage of public money by governments is definitively a mystery. I wish the Lobbyists of the Army/Lockheed Martin/Military complex could do a bit of training for NASA and the research sector. Something tell me humankind could benefit a lot from it. [¹]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... [²]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
• fnord77 6y ago
  are manned fighter aircraft even relevant anymore?
• bonestamp2 6y ago
  > 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. It's more difficult to upgrade the F-16 systems than to design a whole new aircraft? I mean, maybe there are other reasons to design a new aircraft, but this doesn't sound like the whole story.
  • gnu8 6y ago
    They could upgrade the systems all day long, but the fact remains that the F-16 is a pre-stealth airframe and it is simply the wrong shape. What the Air Force wants in a low end fighter is F-16 level systems in a new stealthy airframe.
• bigpumpkin 6y ago
  Other than F-35, what are the US going to field on its carriers? Super-hornets until 2050?
• ansible 6y ago
  So The F-35 costs too much. In other industries, you would look for ways to cost-down the product. We often keep the same basic structure or components, but figure out less expensive ways to accomplish the same goals. Often, the revised product can be more durable and reliable too. It is a shame that the incentives in weapons system development / purchase don't seem to help with this at all. It seems all the incentive is to make the product more and more expensive, and requiring more service.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• qzw 6y ago
  Is it better for the prospect of peace if the U.S. and its adversaries all have large fleets of cheap warplanes or small fleets of expensive ones? I would argue that the F-35 is not only very expensive for the U.S., but has actually increased the cost of fielding fighter jets (as well as air defense systems) for the entire world. And therefore it has made it more expensive to fight a war for every country. Now ask yourself would you rather live in a world where the cost of wars is lower or higher?
  • mathgorges 6y ago
    This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I follow. I get how the F-35 has raised the cost of air war for the NATO countries which have bought into the F-35 program. But how has the F-35 program raised the cost of air war for other countries?
    • qzw 6y ago
      Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and several other countries all have 5th gen/stealth fighters under development. Most at least look to have been heavily “inspired” by the F-35/F-22. These new fighters are all quite costly for their respective countries. It’s basically the international military version of “keeping up with the Joneses”.
• totalZero 6y ago
  The article doesn't substantiate the headline. It's like saying that the navy admits that battleships have failed because of the development of LCS.
• some_random 6y ago
  What a complete load of BS. The program was expensive, but as soon as someone tells you that $100m for brand new fighter is expensive, you know that they're either lying or don't know what they're talking about. Edit: None of you, including me, have enough understanding of this topic to even begin to discuss it in a serious manner. Have you ever heard some technically illiterate family members debate Apple vs Microsoft vs Dell computers? That's what you all sound like right now.
• Aunche 6y ago
  Is there any benefit for a multi-role fighter to have stealth? It seems like any applications where stealth is important, you might as well have a specialized air-superiority fighter.
  • greedo 6y ago
    Every aircraft can benefit from stealth. Stealth helps to protect you not just from other fighters, but from SAMs etc.
    • Aunche 6y ago
      That's a good point about the usefulness of stealth in general, but I don't think that applies for multi-role fighters. From what I understand, the main benefit of multi-role fighters is one of cost. You don't need to pay for a bunch of specialized planes during peacetime. The trade off is that they're not particularly great at anything, but that doesn't matter when your enemy is much weaker than you. In the F-35's case, stealth completely cancels out any cost-benefit of being multi-role.
      • greedo 6y ago
        1) Almost every fighter is now "multi-role." So the word really doesn't add any meaning. 2) Stealth is now table stakes for fighting a peer or near peer opponent. Modern A2AD systems are extremely difficult for non-stealth fighters and bombers to counter. Sure, you can soften them up with Tomahawks, but even those are starting to be less effective. (which is why the US has been developing JAASM and LRASM). 3) While stealth does add costs, especially in maintenance routines, compared to software and systems costs, it's not as significant. And stealth generally doesn't affect performance; the F-35 is an excellent aircraft in terms of range and maneuverability, as is the F-22, the Chinese J-20 and FC-31.
  • solidsnack9000 6y ago
    The risks to CAS aircraft and fighter-bombers from SAMs and AA are actually significant enough to warrant stealth/low-signature technology.
• breck 6y ago
  Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. I wouldn't call this a failure by any means. Failure would be to stop pivoting/adjusting.
• openasocket 6y ago
  I disagree with the conclusions of this article, and feel that the author didn't provide nearly enough evidence to back up a pretty big claim. The notion that the F-35 is a high-end and expensive asset is not some new admission, nor does it mean it is a failure. While it was meant to be a lower-end plain initially, it hasn't been considered that way in a long time. And while I agree that the F-35 is expensive and we may need to supplement it with a lower-end fighter, that's hardly a failure. That's exactly why we ended up developing the F-16: because we needed a lower-end fighter to supplement the F-15. There's plenty to criticize about the F-35, particularly about the procurement strategy and development cycle. But we are starting to see real results. The F-35 has performed very well in exercises like Red Flag. And I don't think you can understate the importance of the F-35B. Yes, it has markedly worse availability rates and maintenance issues than the other variants, but that's pretty common for STOVL aircraft, like the Harrier it is replacing. And not only is the F-35B the only stealth STOVL, it's also the first production STOVL aircraft capable of supersonic speed. I also think it's weird to imply the reason the F-35 has failed (and I don't belive it has) because it's been made in three different variants. That really isn't the reason for all of these delays. There are several examples of aircraft being able to work in multiple roles, like the F-4 and the French Rafale. The fundamental issue is in avionics and logistics. All of these sensors and systems are very complex and difficult to integrate together. Any aircraft with a modern, full-featured AESA radar and IRST sensors sees a protracted development time. In terms of purchasing new, lower-end aircraft, I do think that's a good idea. Depending on where you want that to fit in in terms of doctrine, you've got a couple of options. The USAF is already starting to purchase some F-15EX planes. It's got decent range, good performance in air-to-air and air-to-ground engagements, and it's based on a mature platform which should reduce costs and improve availability. But it's a fairly big beast, and operational costs will still be higher than legacy F-16s. The other option is to go with a genuine light fighter like the JAS-39 Gripen. Cheaper, much lower operational costs, and capable of operating from short, rudimentary runways, but shorter range and less payload capacity. I also think there's space for a "featherweight" plane, like the A-29. When we're engaging Taliban targets that don't have anti-aircraft defenses beyond small arms fire, a simple turboprop will get the job done efficiently and cheaply, and that frees up jets to be used in other theaters.
• blt 6y ago
  The problems with the F-35 feel analogous to problems we face in the software industry. At the implementation level, we tend to underestimate the cost of making a system extensible and "future-proof", and underestimate the value of implementing a narrowly focused system from scratch. At the specification level, product managers too often are willing to add every feature that big customers request.
• AcerbicZero 6y ago
  Gee I never would have guessed that a one size fits all replacement for every F- aircraft (and more than a few A-‘s) in the inventory for every branch would be difficult. It was a trillion dollar stimulus package (or welfare) directed at the good old military industrial complex, plus it helps placate the chicken hawks in Congress who wanted pork for their district. Like most weapon systems developed in peacetime with unclear use cases, it’s kind of just an expensive tech demo.
• tibbydudeza 6y ago
  Remind me of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle whose conflicting requirements from the Army/Marines/Navy was lampooned in a movie.
• superkuh 6y ago
  Keep in mind that modern updates of the F-16 sell for about $100 million each. They are comparable in cost to the F-35.
• drewvolpe 6y ago
  Why start with a clean slate and develop a new plane? If the F-16 is still working, why not start with its design and upgrade the avionics and software?
  • hef19898 6y ago
    One reason would be the age of the airframes. Technically, why not? But at a certain point you will need to compleely rebuild the airframes, like completely down to the last bolt and rivet. Only to still have an old airframe, in some sense. So new aircraft it is. And developing new enngines, avionics and software to put them into a new, and most likely modernized airframe, is frightingly close to a completly new aircraft design. And will give people the oppertunity to add features as well. And of course, because common sense doens't play a role in military development and procuremt for anything more complex than a Hummvee. Looking at the proposed Humvee replacements so...
• m00dy 6y ago
  Turkey got kicked out of this programme. It can't be a coincidence right ?
• t_minus_3 6y ago
  They should be congratulated and promoted. Failing is courageous - you can move to next better thing from the learnings. F36 ???
• cdiamand 6y ago
  I think I read that this generation of fighter requires a lot of rare earth materials? I wonder, in light of a shifting geopolitical situation, if the next generation of fighter might be a stab at something the west can build completely independently on it's own materials?
• zests 6y ago
  Where's the quote from the Air Force saying the F-35 failed? There is none. As far as I can tell this article is just misrepresenting a quote to push a narrative.
  • Maximus9000 6y ago
    I cannot find any other sources on this topic.
  • greedo 6y ago
    David Axe (the Forbes author) has been gunning for this aircraft for years. This article is junk.
  • merpnderp 6y ago
    I took his quotes about how the F-35 is now a high end boutique plane instead of the replacement for everything. The Air Force changed the F-35's designation, which the author takes as a tacit admission of failure. How else would you read the Air Force's statement? "That plane that was supposed to replace all our planes will only replace a few of our planes. We need a new plane to replace all the rest."
    • greedo 6y ago
      Shocked that a project that started out in 1993 would change goals? That requirements would change as both the political/military environment as well as technology changed? It's like saying the B-1 bomber was a failure because we're sending them to the boneyard. And this is not to mention that the Air Force ALWAYS wants something new and shiny.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • peeters 6y ago
    It's an inference. The author is saying that because the Air Force is pursuing a new plane with the same fundamental goals that launched the F-35 program, then the F-35 evidently failed to deliver. He's saying they're really just asking for a do-over. > 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. (Emphasis mine. Tacit means "implied without being stated".)
• mikece 6y ago
  To quote Pierre Spray, one of the "Fighter Mafia" who had a hand in the design of the F-15 and drove the design of the F-16, the F-35 has been a massive success. What's not asked is "What is the mission of the F-35?" and in Spray's opinion the mission of the F-35 has been to drive funding to Lockheed.
  • thereddaikon 6y ago
    Pierre Spray is also a luddite who vehemently rejects the concept of a multirole fighter. The F-16 he advocated for is not anywhere close to the actual F-16. If it were up to him the USAF fighter force would consist of low tech pure dogfighters that didn't have radars or long range missiles. To him the F-5 is the pinnacle of fighter technology. His and the rest of the fighter mafia's extreme views are not popular within the defense community.
    • mikece 6y ago
      Preferring a fighter that doesn't rely on electronics isn't the same as being a luddite. Also, the state of electronics since the early/mid 70s has changed significantly: specifically they have become much lighter, compact, and reliable (none of the three were true when 45 years ago). The main design driver shaping the F-16 was Boyd's energy–maneuverability theory. A major criticism of Sprey is that the F-15, which was crap according to Boyd's math is undefeated in combat. This is true but it also hasn't gone up against the best opposition in the world either. Boyd, Sprey, and the rest of the Fighter Mafia have been hated for decades in the Pentagon but history is showing that their predictions are accurate. One thing which is too classified to know at the moment is whether advances in missile technology have finally gotten to the point where electronics and firing first matter more than the ACM abilities of the pilot and the airframe to which they are strapped. Either way, dismissing Spray as a luddite is an incorrect statement.
• Pxtl 6y ago
  Obvious. Radar invisibility is justifiably valuable to the air force, but it's also almost-prohibitively-expensive. It's not even a cost-benefit thing, because the benefit is there... But you don't want that cost on every plane. Tim Krieder said it best: "we have radar-invisible planes and our enemies don't have radar". For the Al Qaedas and Isises of the world that the US seems to fight so much, the F-35 is absurdly overspecced.
• twobitshifter 6y ago
  Are fighter jets a necessity when we have drones? Other commenters bemoan the lack of technological progress in fighter jets, but a drone is capable of maneuvers that humans cannot survive, and the use of drones also limits the loss of pilot lives. Investing money in drones over fighter jets seems like the cost effective move here. Flying the jet yourself is definitely cooler than doing it by remote control, but I don’t think it will make much sense in warfare in 20 years time. We have to skate to where the puck is going.
  • nickff 6y ago
    Drones aren't as cheap as you might think when you actually tally the total system cost, including ground systems; and the UAVs still have significant issues operating in various mixed airspaces. Take a look at the costing for General Atomics Predator and Northrop Grumman Global Hawk systems, as well as the issues the Germans have had with the latter.
• umvi 6y ago
  F-35 is perhaps one of the ultimate "scope creep" stories, though a lot of military vehicles have the same problems (tanks come to mind). Every big wig wants some bell or whistle for their use case baked in.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• shirro 6y ago
  Time for NASA to admit the same for SLS/Orion.
• Havoc 6y ago
  The irony is the Chinese just copied it...but threw out the jack of all trades part. Which is the problem with the f35
• sschueller 6y ago
  Great and Switzerland still has this feature crep dumpster fire on its list of possible planes to buy. 32 of them....
• naebother 6y ago
  Maybe the real treasure was the jobs we made along the way.
• simonblack 6y ago
  Just a 21st century Brewster Buffalo.
• uniqueid 6y ago
  Pierre Sprey has been trashing the F35 persuasively for years https://youtu.be/N1Z_DuF87Sc https://youtu.be/N1Z_DuF87Sc
• rcv 6y ago
  Maybe the fighter mafia will finally get their way after all. For anyone interested in some behind the scenes of how fighters get developed I recommend the book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War."
• sam_goody 6y ago
  On the other hand (also posted today): https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/02/24/israeli_air_force_could_soon_have_more_f-35_fighters_661588.html https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/02/24/israeli... So, Israel flies lots of pilot hours and seems to think that the plane is a good deal. The F-35 failed in its original goal of being lightweight, but is perhaps fine in the new goal of being a modern fancy fighter that dominate the sky. In which case, it has pivoted to become a success. To extend their analogy, if you live near the Autobahn you would use your Ferrari daily?
  • greedo 6y ago
    It's hard to use Israel's purchase of the F-35 as proof that it's an excellent plant. I think it probably is, but FMS sales are hard to decipher; we give military aid to countries via FMS, but require that money to be spent on US produced equipment. We decided not to export the F-22 (which Israel would have definitely purchased), and the F-16 is a bit long in the tooth. So for their specific needs (stealth fighter-bomber) it might have been the best choice. And Israel negotiated a wide latitude of privileges that allows them to extensively modify the Adir. Plus I don't think being "lightweight" was a goal of the JSF (or its predecessor JAST) program. Being more affordable than the F-22? Definitely.
• bookmarkable 6y ago
  I'm not a military expert, but just as a civilian tired of seeing my taxes wasted, doesn't the US military need to be completely reimagined anyway? Who is it built to defend against? As an example - the flyover at Super Bowl 55. Terrifying air power that could wipe out a civilization, but those bombers don't stop some rogue idiots from storming the Capitol, or any number of foreign and domestic hacking threats.
• WalterBright 6y ago
  Take a look at how John Boyd upended the Air Force dev process, but of course that ended with his untimely death. Nobody else was able to do it. He ran the "Fighter Mafia" which was responsible for the F-15 and F-16 aircraft. https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883 https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/031...
• estaseuropano 6y ago
  323bn spent. There are 331 million Americans. = every American paid around $1000 for this failure. These funds could have gone into schools, roads, social programmes, ... Instead they served to enrich the small crowd owning the defense industry, with little to show for it all.
• Vaderv 6y ago
  Once again proving what Eisenhower said ...
• bootlooped 6y ago
  The funniest anecdote about the F-35 I like to tell is this: the Air Force decided the F-22 was too expensive, they needed something cheaper, so they made the F-35. The F-35 ended up being the most expensive weapons program in human history. Now, I understand that is oversimplifying things, bending the truth a little, and omitting crucial details... but it's not that wrong.
• noitanigami 6y ago
  The F-35 failed from a certain institutional perspective by becoming a real plane. It is no longer a magic money pot where you could park your pet projects for funding. As an actual fighter-plane, it is fine.
• zero_deg_kevin 6y ago
  The people who brought us the F-35 want more money to build another new airplane? If the alternative is surrender, then I surrender without hesitation. The Air Force should just order fewer lattes, take a 20% budget cut, and do the best they can.
• draklor40 6y ago
  Hmm, If I were the Indian govt. I'd atleast attempt to sell the Tejas to the US. Engine is American anyway (GE-404), Israeli radar and avionics compatible with a lot of Western block missiles. Would be an interesting reversal of fortunes. It's sad that the F-35 is in this state. The whole "sensor fusion" (no doubt, overhyped) sounded interesting. I am curious as to how well implemented the same system is on the SAAB Gripens.
  • greedo 6y ago
    The Tejas is terrible. There's a reason why India is trying to buy better aircraft.
    • draklor40 6y ago
      No they are not. There are requirements for various configurations of planes (Single engine, Twin engine, stealth) and Tejas fills one of them. Besides they just ordered 83 from HAL. There is a Mark 2 also in the works , apart from newer twin engine designs.
      • greedo 6y ago
        Tejas is a pride project that has squandered an enormous amount of money for India. It is arguably the worst fighter in production in the world.
        • draklor40 6y ago
          Got it bro. Good luck with your F-35s.
• spaetzleesser 6y ago
  I don’t have much an opinion about the F-35 but one thing I have noticed: A lot of people are mentioning Skunkworks planes like SR-71 and U-2. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Skunkworks basically built highly specialized prototypes that performed well within their intended use but were super expensive to maintain and couldn’t be deployed on a larger scale. I would compare them more to an F1 team that can build great cars quickly but need 20 people just to get them ready for a lap. Building impressive prototypes is way easier than building something on large scale in an efficient way. Again, I don’t know much about the F-35 but Skunkworks is not the model.
• pacman2 6y ago
  The F-35 was always over-ambiguous. You may end up with something that can not fly far, can not fly high, can not carry a big payload, can not dog-fight, has an insane maintenance requirement and may, or may not be invisible. No plane can be invisible by definition. It may or may not be invisible on specific radars. The F-35 was not build to fight Iraq or Iran. I was build to fight China or Russia. This makes it a big bet. As far as I know "Superiority" is required reading in MIT Engineering programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)
• ranman 6y ago
  So when can we get our tax refund?
• smktoon 6y ago
  The contractors of these projects know they can lock in long term deals for a ridiculous amount of money and take their time building and then after so long they end the project and then repeat.
• cwkoss 6y ago
  The F-35 didn't fail. The goal was to provide porkbarrel jobs in the districts of the politicians who pushed for it. It has been clear that it wasn't going to be a useful platform for USAF for years.
• Johnny555 6y ago
  the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter. I think that before a brand new manned fighter design leaves the assembly line and takes its first flight, unmanned drones will rule the air.
• neurotech1 6y ago
  It's ironic the X-35 (Essentially F-35 prototype) came from the LM Skunkworks. The very same organization than once preached lean development. Kelly Johnson's [0] Rules of Management should be required reading for any project manager or contracting official. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)#Kelly_Johnson's_14_Rules_of_Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)#Kelly...
• CoffeeDregs 6y ago
  Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-payer. The Covid bailout last year was about $60,000 per tax payer (https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/ https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/). How much of your $60,000 did you see? I'm not arguing for or against these programs; I'm arguing for expressing them in comprehensible terms. $6,000,000,000,000 societal total; or $60,000 for you. Do you expect to receive $15,000 of value from the F35 program? I'm not sure I won't: perhaps it'll keep oil/energy prices stable and I spent well more than $300/year on energy...
  • maxerickson 6y ago
    Where did the other 40 million people go? Also, the Federal Reserve spending is not backed by taxes.
  • nikodunk 6y ago
    Very interesting proposition. Small side note - a lot of this $300/year/tax-payer is flowing back into paying US salaries in various states... which is probably recursively why the ticket price is so high in the first place (cost-plus, politicians and all). Also, the $60,000/tax-payer Covid ticket price (though I find that source questionable) is missing averaging out over multiple years as you said yourself. Needs to be consistent with the other number.
    • runarberg 6y ago
      I take issue with comparing a single project to a generic relief. A fair comparison would be to only compare a single stimulus effort (say the $1000 one). Or if you want to compare the total covid effort, compare it with the total military budget. This type of comparison reminds me of how people abuse statistics by comparing a city (or even a neighborhood) to another state (or even a country); say the average New Yorker vs. the average Swede.
• Milkman128 6y ago
  Honestly the future is drones. Not sure what the value of maned aircraft is. AI air superiority drones should be their next thing Not entirely but like 15% of the force
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• hokumguru 6y ago
  We need more Andurils - small (relatively) defense startups that bring innovation and competition to the table with modern approaches to project management.
• irjustin 6y ago
  F-35 had the same fundamental problems as the Space Shuttle. High level requirements: Dog fighting, close in air support, stealth, long range, automatic weapon systems, VTOL variant. It was said many times over the decade but this plane has no specialization, so it sucks at everything. F-16's can beat it in a dogfight, A-10's are better close support, etc etc. The Space Shuttle was rightfully cancelled (Still, I was sad) because it was a bucket of requirements that had huge reliability and cost problems. Don't worry, this will repeat itself. A bunch of specialized tools exist and then someone says "I can build you a swiss army knife" and someone high up gets sold the dream of the multi-function tool. "It's gonna solve all our problems, you'll see..." The multi-function tool looks f'ing fantastic on paper. It does everything! Until you put it up against actual specialized hardware and then decision makers say "ohhhhh yeah that's why we did it like that..."
• rawgabbit 6y ago
  I find the Forbes article completely misreads the source article it quotes from: https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/ https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-stu.... Unless the Forbes author has inside information, the airforcemag article in no shape or fashion says the F35 is a failure. The airforcemag article quoted Gen Brown saying the combat commanders are using the F35 too much. And wearing out the available ENGINES. With a limited budget and the mission he he has to fulfill he wants a cheaper alternative that he can sends into low threat theaters. And preserve the F35 if and when the US must fight near peer enemies. Eg Russia and China.
• wly_cdgr 6y ago
  F-35, the Jira of fighter planes
• wly_cdgr 6y ago
  The F-35 JIRA
• dillondoyle 6y ago
  If we are looking for 'affordable, lightweight fighters' to 'complement a small future fleet of' F35s sholdn't we just build a ton of uber cheap drones? The F35 is supposed to have amazing networked situational awareness (idk the military terms) which seems like a great platform to control a fleet of slave drones? Kind of like an aircraft carrier, surrounded by a lot of support.
  • ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    The square-cube law implies some performance characteristics that only big-enough craft can fulfill, and at that size point you aren't saving money with "disposable" cheap-and-small drones. Specifically, air resistance scales with cross sectional area, while fuel storage and engine power output scales with volume. You can trade off fuel for engine power by making a more missile-like design, but then you're left with a conventional plane. Like, this is the fundamental reason why ground-based missiles don't rule the skies. Aircraft can go high enough and travel fast enough that any intercept solution has you firing well before they've committed to flying into the effective range of the missile.
    • portpecos 6y ago
      Side note: If the Square-Cube law is true, then maybe the American Airlines UFO is definitely not a drone. Some were claiming it was likely a drone.
    • dillondoyle 6y ago
      But wouldn't there still be a lot of savings for not having a human and all the controls that come with it - and maybe some more flexibility in design? It sounds like they are looking for air-to-air replacement? Not caring bombs saves a lot of weight and size. Hell maybe even just do what terrorists have learned and make cheap kamikaze drones which are really fast and simply blow up.
• scarier 6y ago
  There's a fantastic book called Augustine's Laws where the eponymous author extrapolates trends in defense spending to reach the conclusion that "in the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft." I'm sure Lockheed will give us a great deal on it though...
• kaonashi 6y ago
  The goal seems to have been to siphon as much money as possible to defense contractors while being politically unassailable, so I think it's succeeded admirably.
• Gustomaximus 6y ago
  First, not an expert, just armchair critic so take what I say with a large pinch of salt, but... I think something US should take out of this is consider what Russia do with their monkey model strategy. Basically with something like tank/jet they do 2 models, one with all the bells and whistles and the other is a simple version. This has 2 main uses; 1) Export market so they can sell simpler/cheaper and not share all tech. America does this somewhat but more on the tech protection side I believe. 2) Manufacturing output potential, so in a war countries win in the either the first strike or attrition. If you hit the attrition stage you want simplified options so factories can output faster vs the multiples the premium version take in time and resource. If they had this, it might have given a low cost daily driver option while not forgoing the top end capability. The other thing I thing Russia does I feel countries like mine (Australia) and other western nations should do more of is work out how to expand military into absorbing civilians. This way you can scale down the size generally whilst having solid plans on how to scale up quickly beyond the usual reserves. I've raised this before but people say military tech is too advanced. But I feel humans are smart and adaptable, I've little doubt if they look into this they would realise maybe women in their 60's (example/guess as far from normal military recruits) might make great radio operators with minimal training or drive supply lorries. Having this knowledge would give a huge force multiplier to armies if they want to scale fast and ideally help reduce the need for as large standing forces.
  • goatinaboat 6y ago
    I think something US should take out of this is consider what Russia do with their monkey model strategy. Basically with something like tank/jet they do 2 models, one with all the bells and whistles and the other is a simple version. You mean like they did with the F15 and the F16?
• flockonus 6y ago
  It absolutely blows my mind how antiquate air force research is. An effort to develp an array of remotely controlled C4 packing "kamikaze" drones that when produces in mass would cost about $1k each is infitnitely more interesting, and yet gov. spends this kind of money on over complicated technology.
• transfire 6y ago
  We'll who could have guessed \s ... if only they had chosen the actual winner of the competition, Boeing, instead playing politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program
• bArray 6y ago
  How does the F35 compare with something like the EuroFighter Typhoon? I know the F35 took a lot of the orders away from the Typhoon, but the Typhoon has already been quite successful in multiple modern conflicts? (EDIT) Accidentally hit 'comment' before finishing.
• radium3d 6y ago
  Someone trying to short Northrop? I see them flying over my house all the time
• goatinaboat 6y ago
  Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets. This approach is very typical of the UK MoD as well. Buy fewer than planned of an item to "save money" without understanding that the R&D cost is the same and will be spread over however many of them you buy. Then fatigue them to death because they are too few to meet the commitment, driving up maintenance costs and bringing forwards the date at which they will need to be replaced. Rinse and repeat. The UK looks to be cutting its order from 138 to 48 F35s, but who knows what will be in next month's defence review...
• noyesno 6y ago
  The Finnish air force is in the final stages on deciding the purchase of next-gen fighters to replace the aging F/A-18 Hornets. I wonder how this might affect the decision process. (Currently on the short list are: F/A-18 EF Super Hornet, F-35A Lightning II, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and JAS 39E/F Gripen.)
• exabrial 6y ago
  Ah, the F-35 disinformation campaign continues. If you read the article you'll see that there is nothing substantiating the claim other than the author connecting yarn on pegboard. My opinion here is the Air Force recognizes the cost overruns from the program mean they need to make sure the USA's "near peer rivals" (their words) are lulled into a false sense of security, As they won't be able to spend this money again for a good 20 years. China is 12-15 years behind, Russia maybe 3-5. An incredible amount of risk was undertaken in the project. Hopefully the lessons learned make future development much cheaper, as nothing like the aircraft has ever taken to the skies.
• marshmallow_12 6y ago
  so the us needs a lightweight multi role fighter? we have that already in Europe. it's called the eurofighter typhoon.someone in the pentagon should just pick up the phone and order some. they come in opened-never used, refurbished, new, or as a diy kit, they also pretty good at what they do. if they buy enough, i'm sure eurofighter will chuck in a free bomb or 2.
• sinuhe69 6y ago
  Maybe the best thing they can do now is to invest in swarm drones. The time of manned jets is over. Time for the machines.
• neycoda 6y ago
  And this is why Congress will dump a billion more dollars into it.
• TomMasz 6y ago
  It's hard enough to build something like the F-35 for one customer, let alone three. Especially when those three customers have wildly differing requirements. Not that it can't be done, but it can't be done they way they did it. Unless they rethink their approach, the next fighter is doomed to the same fate.
• callesgg 6y ago
  The us does not need new fighter jets. The current generation drones is enough. If the us needs something it is cheaper and better air to air missiles. Not that there is anyone to fight anyways. A drone with 2 guided missiles that can be lost with no human casualty is allot better than any human carrying fighter aircraft could every be. And it does not have to be fast cause 1. the missiles are fast 2. it does not matter if the drone is lost.
• mjfl 6y ago
  this is just the beast asking you to feed it