4 ms·

This says a lot about what we already knew about the F-35. While the F-35 was (originally) billed as an air superiority multirole fighter, the design by commit

This says a lot about what we already knew about the F-35. While the F-35 was (originally) billed as an air superiority multirole fighter, the design by committee approach resulted in a machine that is not great at anything. The AF knows this, and that's why they're filling in with the f-22 stopgap until a true next gen air superiority fighter arrives. The F-35 will serve as a case study of how not to run government contracts. Woefully over budget, behind schedule, and doesn't meet the original requirements (iirc congress±the military even relaxed the requirements at some point).

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
The entire government is a case study on how not to run government contracts.
- cguess 4y ago
  Got a better process?
neerd 4y ago
The F-35 suffered from each branch wanting the plane to be something different. The same airframe has to support radically different internals and flight characteristics on the A, B, and C models. The program had a myriad of issues but if each branch had just developed its own the cost would have been overall lower.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  It also had to be built with tech the US was willing to export to foreign "partners" (and whatever allegiances they might harbor).
- TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
  Sometimes, in government procurement especially, you have to realise that the 'program' and 'the outcome' are two distinct entities. F35 was a high profile, congress level program that everyone knew was a priority. If i was some Air Force general that has been thinking about halolenses, Advanced AI, manuverability, radar, cloaking, etc. You could get funding through the project. So many different things came out of the f35 outside of the f35.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Pentagon Wars, but for the F-35. The thing is, and as we’re about to see with the Bradley in Ukraine, it’s not as big a deal when your adversary is absolutely terrible at war. I guess we could just keep counting on that never changing…
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
  - Maursault 4y ago
    thx for posting. I just love it when Richard Schiff yells. It's music to my ears.
- greedo 4y ago
  And despite people getting entertainment value out of the "Pentagon Wars", the Bradley has proven its detractors wrong on almost every count. It's like watching Dr. Strangelove and thinking that's how the National Security Council operates.
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    The important thing with Pentagon Wars is that the detractors couldn't tell the difference between AFV and IFV. It is like comparing a minivan or pickup truck and complaining that the truck has bed (with machine gun) and carries less people when that is the whole point. IFV made AFVs obsolete and the US needed to build the Bradley to compete with Soviet ones. Or testing the Bradley against anti-tank weapons when it was never designed to survive them cause it is not a tank. And most tanks can't survive them. The other funny error in Pentagon Wars is complaining about the $12 billion price tag. When the Bradley program cost $6 billion and was underbudget.
TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
In the article, they ordered 76 f35's, which is max production. >resulted in a machine that is not great at anything. the f35 is the most capable aircraft in almost every KPI. Granted, The program was ungodly expensive, but we are still paying $2B for each b2, so at $300-760m a pop, it's still ungodly expensive, but the DOD's budget is infinite.
- nradov 4y ago
  We are not still paying $2B for each B-2. Production of those ended years ago. The replacement B-21 is expected to be somewhat cheaper (although still very expensive) with a unit price in the $700M range.
- paulddraper 4y ago
  That it is
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chiph 4y ago
  With recent foreign military sales (Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic, maybe Greece), the R&D costs of the F-35 are now being spread over a much larger fleet. It's still not a cheap plane .. but the price is dropping by building them in volume (like was originally intended for the F-22). Production rate is up to about one being delivered every other day. Lockheed Martin and it's many contractors have made a large investment in production tooling & automation so the planes are being built in a process more like an automotive assembly line than individually like in years past. Note the large fixture @3:00 holding the wings vertically to make it easier to drill accurate holes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPEy3QwsKjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPEy3QwsKjQ
- greedo 4y ago
  Not sure where you're getting your figures, but the B2 has been out of production for decades, and the cost for the F-35 is below a new build F-16.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> why they're filling in with the f-22 stopgap until a true next gen air superiority fighter arrives The sort of combat where an F-22 would outfight an F-35 is somewhere between extremely rare and obsolete. Add to that the massive costs of running the F-22, and the balance shifts to having more F-35s and armament over a luxury squad of F-22s.
- CharlieDigital 4y ago
  I feel like people think modern air warfare is like Top Gun while the whole point is to attack out of visual range.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The whole point of modern air warfare is to knock out adversary aircraft (and associated facilities and supplies) on the ground before they can ever take off by using stand-off weapons and low-observable strike platforms. NGAD will still retain some significant air-to-air capability but I expect the concept of operations will focus on avoiding those fights except as a last resort. Why risk fighting a duel with your adversary when it's safer to sneak in at night and burn his house down?
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  It is actually extremely unclear exactly how modern BVR combat between stealth aircraft would play out, so no one can say that for sure. It may well be the case that combat between VLO fighters ends up such that superior kinematics matters. It may also be the case that super-long-range engagement against information and control nodes is the key, in which case something like the J-20 may actually be superior, due to being optimized for the longest possible range of A2A combat.
greedo 4y ago
The F-35 was never billed as an air superiority fighter. The basic idea was a stealth version of the F-16. It was always designed in mind with the F-22 performing the Hi in the Hi-Lo mix. Your comment is woefully uninformed and misleading.
- elromulous 4y ago
  I think the narrative that it needn't be an air superiority fighter came later (I.e. they changed the requirements when they realized it would not be competitive in practice). iirc it was originally intended to be an air superiority fighter. Consider this line from the wikipedia F-35 entry "intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions."
  - alecfreudenberg 4y ago
    primarily air command, leveraging the sensor suite to operate non air-to-air tasks. it's an advanced systems ship that can use information and agility to complete most missions that don't involve pushing peak gs, velocity and circle radius.
  - greedo 4y ago
    F-35 was spawned from the JAST initiative coming out of the Pentagon's Bottom up review. It was designed to replace the F-16, A-10, Harrier, as well as the F/A-18C and D models. It was no more an air superiority fighter than the F-16. Would it be expect to be able to fight if needed? Sure, just like a Falcon would, but that wasn't it's primary mission/role. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jast.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jas...
  - greedo 4y ago
    Ah, missed the edit window. Just because someone writes it in Wikipedia doesn't make it accurate. The concept of an air superiority fighter really started with the F-15 Eagle (its contemporary, the F-14 was really a fleet defender designed around the AWG-9 radar and Phoenix missile system). When the F-22 was developed, it was so far ahead of anything that USAF started referring to it as an "air supremacy" fighter that would treat opposing aircraft by "clubbing baby seals." That's how easy it would be for the F-22... The confusion lies in the origins of the F-16. It was intended to be a daylight fighter with only short range missiles and guns, and highly maneuverable. Sprey and clan wanted a cheap fighter that could be built in mass. The life of the Falcon turned out quite different, and despite it being highly maneuverable, it was matched by other aircraft of the time (F/A-18, Fulcrum). Though it is one sexy bird. But most USAF planning viewed the F-16 as a bomb truck (replacing the A-7) that could "swing" to help out in A2A if things got too hot. And eventually the F-16 became quite good at its strike mission, as well as SEAD/DEAD and even CAS once LANTIRN and Litening pods were wide spread. This is the role the F-35 is intended to replace; the view is that NO non-stealthy aircraft can perform these roles in a contested environment with a near-peer opponent. And I think Ukraine is proving this out well...
ranger207 4y ago
No, the F-35 is one of the top 3 (depending on how you estimate the capabilities of the J-20 and the importance of sensors it could easily be #1) air superiority fighters in the world. A large part of that is simply that it's the first fighter designed since Moore's Law really got going in the 90s. Yes, the F-22 was designed after Moore, but it was an 80s design using hardened 80s computers, and its computing architecture is still reminiscent of that era. The F-35 is a 90s design using 90s computers, and our idea of computing changed significantly from the mainframe-style "upgrade one a decade" concepts dominant in the 80s to the PC "upgrade once a year" of the 90s. Combine that with American dominance in sensors and engines and even though the F-35's kinematics may not be as great as the F-22's, it's capable of killing airborne targets without needing those kinematics. The big unknown is the J-20 and whatever next-gen programs the PRC has going, but _currently_ the F-35 is likely better at killing air targets. NGAD exists to be a fully-upgradeable air superiority counterpart to the F-35. It'll be 100% air superiority like the F-22, but will be upgradeable with relatively minor revisions like the F-35. It's designed that way because almost certainly the PRC air superiority fighters will be designed the same way. Its existence isn't a condemnation of the F-35, any more than the existence of a high-low mix isn't condemnation of the low part of the mix.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

The entire government is a case study on how not to run government contracts.

cguess 4y ago
Got a better process?

neerd 4y ago

The F-35 suffered from each branch wanting the plane to be something different. The same airframe has to support radically different internals and flight characteristics on the A, B, and C models. The program had a myriad of issues but if each branch had just developed its own the cost would have been overall lower.

908B64B197 4y ago
It also had to be built with tech the US was willing to export to foreign "partners" (and whatever allegiances they might harbor).
TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
Sometimes, in government procurement especially, you have to realise that the 'program' and 'the outcome' are two distinct entities. F35 was a high profile, congress level program that everyone knew was a priority. If i was some Air Force general that has been thinking about halolenses, Advanced AI, manuverability, radar, cloaking, etc. You could get funding through the project. So many different things came out of the f35 outside of the f35.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Pentagon Wars, but for the F-35. The thing is, and as we’re about to see with the Bradley in Ukraine, it’s not as big a deal when your adversary is absolutely terrible at war. I guess we could just keep counting on that never changing…

toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
- Maursault 4y ago
  thx for posting. I just love it when Richard Schiff yells. It's music to my ears.
greedo 4y ago
And despite people getting entertainment value out of the "Pentagon Wars", the Bradley has proven its detractors wrong on almost every count. It's like watching Dr. Strangelove and thinking that's how the National Security Council operates.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  The important thing with Pentagon Wars is that the detractors couldn't tell the difference between AFV and IFV. It is like comparing a minivan or pickup truck and complaining that the truck has bed (with machine gun) and carries less people when that is the whole point. IFV made AFVs obsolete and the US needed to build the Bradley to compete with Soviet ones. Or testing the Bradley against anti-tank weapons when it was never designed to survive them cause it is not a tank. And most tanks can't survive them. The other funny error in Pentagon Wars is complaining about the $12 billion price tag. When the Bradley program cost $6 billion and was underbudget.

TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago

In the article, they ordered 76 f35's, which is max production. >resulted in a machine that is not great at anything. the f35 is the most capable aircraft in almost every KPI. Granted, The program was ungodly expensive, but we are still paying $2B for each b2, so at $300-760m a pop, it's still ungodly expensive, but the DOD's budget is infinite.

nradov 4y ago
We are not still paying $2B for each B-2. Production of those ended years ago. The replacement B-21 is expected to be somewhat cheaper (although still very expensive) with a unit price in the $700M range.
paulddraper 4y ago
That it is
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chiph 4y ago
With recent foreign military sales (Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic, maybe Greece), the R&D costs of the F-35 are now being spread over a much larger fleet. It's still not a cheap plane .. but the price is dropping by building them in volume (like was originally intended for the F-22). Production rate is up to about one being delivered every other day. Lockheed Martin and it's many contractors have made a large investment in production tooling & automation so the planes are being built in a process more like an automotive assembly line than individually like in years past. Note the large fixture @3:00 holding the wings vertically to make it easier to drill accurate holes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPEy3QwsKjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPEy3QwsKjQ
greedo 4y ago
Not sure where you're getting your figures, but the B2 has been out of production for decades, and the cost for the F-35 is below a new build F-16.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> why they're filling in with the f-22 stopgap until a true next gen air superiority fighter arrives The sort of combat where an F-22 would outfight an F-35 is somewhere between extremely rare and obsolete. Add to that the massive costs of running the F-22, and the balance shifts to having more F-35s and armament over a luxury squad of F-22s.

CharlieDigital 4y ago
I feel like people think modern air warfare is like Top Gun while the whole point is to attack out of visual range.
- nradov 4y ago
  The whole point of modern air warfare is to knock out adversary aircraft (and associated facilities and supplies) on the ground before they can ever take off by using stand-off weapons and low-observable strike platforms. NGAD will still retain some significant air-to-air capability but I expect the concept of operations will focus on avoiding those fights except as a last resort. Why risk fighting a duel with your adversary when it's safer to sneak in at night and burn his house down?
sudosysgen 4y ago
It is actually extremely unclear exactly how modern BVR combat between stealth aircraft would play out, so no one can say that for sure. It may well be the case that combat between VLO fighters ends up such that superior kinematics matters. It may also be the case that super-long-range engagement against information and control nodes is the key, in which case something like the J-20 may actually be superior, due to being optimized for the longest possible range of A2A combat.

greedo 4y ago

The F-35 was never billed as an air superiority fighter. The basic idea was a stealth version of the F-16. It was always designed in mind with the F-22 performing the Hi in the Hi-Lo mix. Your comment is woefully uninformed and misleading.

elromulous 4y ago
I think the narrative that it needn't be an air superiority fighter came later (I.e. they changed the requirements when they realized it would not be competitive in practice). iirc it was originally intended to be an air superiority fighter. Consider this line from the wikipedia F-35 entry "intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions."
- alecfreudenberg 4y ago
  primarily air command, leveraging the sensor suite to operate non air-to-air tasks. it's an advanced systems ship that can use information and agility to complete most missions that don't involve pushing peak gs, velocity and circle radius.
- greedo 4y ago
  F-35 was spawned from the JAST initiative coming out of the Pentagon's Bottom up review. It was designed to replace the F-16, A-10, Harrier, as well as the F/A-18C and D models. It was no more an air superiority fighter than the F-16. Would it be expect to be able to fight if needed? Sure, just like a Falcon would, but that wasn't it's primary mission/role. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jast.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jas...
- greedo 4y ago
  Ah, missed the edit window. Just because someone writes it in Wikipedia doesn't make it accurate. The concept of an air superiority fighter really started with the F-15 Eagle (its contemporary, the F-14 was really a fleet defender designed around the AWG-9 radar and Phoenix missile system). When the F-22 was developed, it was so far ahead of anything that USAF started referring to it as an "air supremacy" fighter that would treat opposing aircraft by "clubbing baby seals." That's how easy it would be for the F-22... The confusion lies in the origins of the F-16. It was intended to be a daylight fighter with only short range missiles and guns, and highly maneuverable. Sprey and clan wanted a cheap fighter that could be built in mass. The life of the Falcon turned out quite different, and despite it being highly maneuverable, it was matched by other aircraft of the time (F/A-18, Fulcrum). Though it is one sexy bird. But most USAF planning viewed the F-16 as a bomb truck (replacing the A-7) that could "swing" to help out in A2A if things got too hot. And eventually the F-16 became quite good at its strike mission, as well as SEAD/DEAD and even CAS once LANTIRN and Litening pods were wide spread. This is the role the F-35 is intended to replace; the view is that NO non-stealthy aircraft can perform these roles in a contested environment with a near-peer opponent. And I think Ukraine is proving this out well...

ranger207 4y ago

No, the F-35 is one of the top 3 (depending on how you estimate the capabilities of the J-20 and the importance of sensors it could easily be #1) air superiority fighters in the world. A large part of that is simply that it's the first fighter designed since Moore's Law really got going in the 90s. Yes, the F-22 was designed after Moore, but it was an 80s design using hardened 80s computers, and its computing architecture is still reminiscent of that era. The F-35 is a 90s design using 90s computers, and our idea of computing changed significantly from the mainframe-style "upgrade one a decade" concepts dominant in the 80s to the PC "upgrade once a year" of the 90s. Combine that with American dominance in sensors and engines and even though the F-35's kinematics may not be as great as the F-22's, it's capable of killing airborne targets without needing those kinematics. The big unknown is the J-20 and whatever next-gen programs the PRC has going, but _currently_ the F-35 is likely better at killing air targets. NGAD exists to be a fully-upgradeable air superiority counterpart to the F-35. It'll be 100% air superiority like the F-22, but will be upgradeable with relatively minor revisions like the F-35. It's designed that way because almost certainly the PRC air superiority fighters will be designed the same way. Its existence isn't a condemnation of the F-35, any more than the existence of a high-low mix isn't condemnation of the low part of the mix.