9 ms·

Declassified Pentagon F-35 Study Details Reliability, Security Woes

33 points by nf3 2y ago

nf3 2y ago
https://archive.ph/0toiV https://archive.ph/0toiV
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
hunglee2 2y ago
Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?
- fusivdh 2y ago
  There's no other fifth generation fighter available for export to the richest countries in the world? Corruption to pass trials. Corruption to get sales? No matter how much waste, a trillion dollars is bound to create something with some value? It's junk, in the sense that we could have gotten a much better airframe for less sad money.
- MaxPock 2y ago
  You buy F-35s to protect yourself from the mafia .
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  > the boondoggle this article implies it to be? I highly recommend reading contemporary reporting on what are considered wildly successful aircraft (like the teen series F-14/15/16). Hint: Just change one number and they're indistinguishable from reporting on the F-35.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    the F-14 was an expensive hanger queen and was retired rapidly. the F-16 is still seeing use and was rotated out years after the F-14. but yeah all fighters have bugs, often a lot of them
- sofixa 2y ago
  It's the most modern jet that can be acquired. The Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon are all very good jets, but they're around half a generation behind; they're still popular and acquired by various countries because they better fit their requirements (or because the US doesn't want to sell them F-35).
- ossobuco 2y ago
  > What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? The overwhelming USA sphere of influence over its "allies". I don't really see a NATO member buying new fighter jets from China or Russia instead without that causing a big ruckus.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    Sweden sells a really nice NATO-compatible multirole jet.
    - euler_angles 2y ago
      The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft, meaning it isn't certified to carry nuclear weapons. This makes it a tough sell to NATO nations who must align themselves to NATO's strategic goals [0], which call for nations to contribute dual-capable aircraft. Nor is the Gripen independent from US supply chains. It uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E engine. If you're a NATO nation looking for a non-US jet that can satisfy your dual-capable needs, your only option is the Rafale. [0] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pd...
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        > The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft I did not realize that, thank you. I simply assumed that with the bomber role came the ability to carry a small (<500 pound) tactical nuke. Is this more of a certification issue or an actual hardware issue?
        euler_angles 2y ago
        It's mostly a certification issue. There are some hardware changes and integration work that has to be done, but the biggest obstacle is that the certification work is done in and by the US. So there's a diplomatic element.
- orwin 2y ago
  For the first sales (Australia and either Norway or sweden, i dont remember), the US and lockheed Martin hid away the issues and lied on operating cost and availability. For sales to NATO: you have to buy a plane that can carry the US bomb if you don't have one yourself (despite the fact that nukes will probably never be launched from aircrafts if at all). For sales against competition, i don't have a lot of data, but you can check the Swiss 2022 competition between the F16, F18, Rafale, Gripen and F35, public data is scarce but basically, the Rafale and F18 would have been better on most points except VTOL and stealth. The choice however was probably economic (as while VTOL is nice, Swiss short airports are still longer than carriers, and stealth isn't that much of a factor in defense, especially in the Alps): they bought planes for less than half the price NATO countries did, and 60% of the money will be spent locally: basically 20% of the cost Germany and other NATO countries paid.
  - JohnBooty 2y ago
    stealth isn't that much of a factor in defense, especially in the Alps I'm far from an expert. Can you elaborate? I know that mountains can help planes evade radar and missiles. But any fighters used in a defense role (against Russia presumably) are definitely going to need to contend with (Russia's apparently rather capable) air to air missiles. I think they might well need to deal with SAM as well. Sx00 batteries are portable and presumably an invading Russian force would be bringing them along for the ride with ground forces. So I don't know; stealth seems like one of the most important things these days, if you're planning on engaging anybody with modern air to air missiles.
    - orwin 2y ago
      If you only have to contend in air battle and do not need ground control, like in a mountainous area, multipurpose jets will likely act as mobile SAM batteries. The range of METEOR missiles make it unlikely that your plane will be detected before it has time to launch, and even then, will be out of range of SAMs. The issue is that stealth mostly make sense on SEAD/DEAD (where frankly, BVR missiles and AWACS make even more sense), or bombing runs. It isn't useful in CAS where having more ordonance is better (if your enemy only have manpads and VSHORAD you are safe with any modern plane), only SHORAD with more than 15km range are threatening, and nowaday you have missiles that will target those from a longer range. Just equip yourself with those, destroy SHORAD SAM/Radars with ARMs, engage enemy army with Apaches (or if you have the means, LORA), go back, refuel, go again (that, you can't do with f35 in Beast mode, because they overheat. Other plane have refueling issues too, but none of them have that long of a downtime between runs) Overall, i really dislike the idea of multipurpose stealth jets: it limit your electronic warfare capacity (the issues with the new f35 radar array were caused by its nose profile), it isn't usefull for real CAS, and it greatly increase costs. To me, you can go two ways. The first would be multiple costly, but dedicated planes that will be superior to your ennemy in their field: the F22, or the B2 (or the A-10). I even like the B21 concept, i'm not anti-US planes, i like the f35 engine (well, no, not really, i think it isn't safe, and make emergency landing extremely dangerous, but i like the principle behind), i dislike the motivation or idea behind the f35. The other planes the USAF have are great, and have reasons to be as they are. The second would be to have a multirole jet, cheap, with high availability, easy to maintain, to train all of your pilot on it (with 200 real flying hours/year, not simulator, wink wink Russia). Unless you fight the USA, this will likely be enough to at least give you a fighting chance. stealth here is just another cost factor that will lead you to have less planes, less pilots, and more operating costs. The reason Switzerland chose the f35 is that it was sold at 45% of its original cost, and with the promise to have 60% of that cost spent locally, to swiss industry.
- invalidname 2y ago
  The article is sensational and deeply misleading. Yes, the plane has a lot of bugs. It's got complicated software and hardware. You can't compare it to the relatively simple older designs that didn't deal with stealth. Yes they don't need to test dogfights because war isn't a video game. When the enemy sees the f35 it is after it already sent the missile in your direction. You don't need to dogfight if you're an invisible ghost that can kill from a distance. The f16 had a ton of bugs such as flipping over when south of the equator. It's a much better machine now and the f35 has all the makings to be a similar leap forward.
  - nosianu 2y ago
    > The f16 had a ton of bugs such as flipping over when south of the equator. In the simulator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541685 The page that comment links to lists some (minor) problems found on the real plane too though.
- imwillofficial 2y ago
  Unfortunately we do not measure combat weapons in terms of commercial success. We measure them in terms of lethality and reliability.
  - fyt2024 2y ago
    [dead]
- belter 2y ago
  Microsoft enters the room....
- aa-jv 2y ago
  >What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? A lack of actual proven fight-testing.
  - euler_angles 2y ago
    But it did the most extensive flight test program for anything in history [0]. I worked on this program for years. I do not think a lack of flight testing is the problem. The problems are many, but in short: 1) Lack of competent, forceful oversight from the program office. DOT&E reports about the F-35 program have, for years, given the program office recommendations that it has failed to follow. 2) A prime contractor (Lockheed-Martin) that restricts access to its data. The F-35 program had to sue LM in federal court to get access to the necessary data to make the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) fully functional. In the end, the case was settled, but only after six years of battle. The report linked in the parent article describes how maintainers are not allowed access to servicing procedures that they have on other aircraft. I have seen this personally in flight test. Even something like a gear swing requires an LM certified Field Services Engineer to conduct. 3) A completely broken software release process. For many years in developmental flight test, we received software builds that were just entirely broken, as in, the jet would not start with that software loaded. The C2D2 process was advertised as fixing this, but really it was just a new name for the same old fly-fix-fly process. The parent report details entire versions that were skipped in the IOT&E process because they were so buggy. The program could have turned JSE into the final stop for new software builds before hitting the fleet, but it chose to pivot entirely into training instead. I could keep going. A decade working in a program like this gives you a long list of things to talk about. But I'll stop here for now. [0] https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-04-12-F-35-Completes-Most-Comprehensive-Flight-Test-Program-in-Aviation-History https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-04-12-F-35-Completes-Mo...
    - aa-jv 2y ago
      I meant, tested in actual combat against real adversaries, not test teams, but you've pointed out there are worse issues at stake.
- mrtksn 2y ago
  > What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? Easy, desire to please American politicians to fetch political support from the USA and strengthen your position as military ally. Ideally, you will be looking so scary that you wouldn’t have to actually use the plane.
  - fsloth 2y ago
    ” you will be looking so scary that you wouldn’t have to actually use the plane.” I’d say this is the main intent. But not only because of the political aspects. AFAIK the plane is intended to be used like an ultra-mobile target aquisition and launch platform designed to engage targets Really Far Away and then return to base (any base since it’s NATO compatible). It’s not really supposed to engage in Top Gun -style dogfighting. So the main question is the capability of the radar and the missiles you carry, not necessarily the air frame itself. And as I understand those are fit for purpose. Ofc if you are launching missiles far away for defensive purposes surely you could do it a lot cheaper, and that I would see as the main point of critique. I’m not saying the issues are not issues, but as a non-expert-paying-customer (my country bought 64 of them I think) as long as you get airborn, acquire target lock and can launch missile, you are more or less using the offering as promised.
- DocTomoe 2y ago
  Is it? The 737 has been sold 12000 times, with thousands of orders in the pipeline. The A320 is not far behind, but only got introduced twenty years later Even if you just consider military airframes, the MiG-21 has been built 11000 times, and is/was used by more than 50 operators world-wide, all of which have paid for the privilege. Then there's the C-130, with 2500 units produced and operated by 70 countries. The first American Fighter jet would be the F-4 Phantom II, with 5000 units built, and used extensively abroad. The F-16 has 4600 units built up to now and is used by more than 25 countries. (I'm ignoring the P-51 with its 15000 units here because they were mostly used by the US and rarely sold abroad). tl;dr: The F-35 is not the most commercially successful airframe in the world, in fact, it does not even come close.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Its basically a arcade-chip tradeable for us-protection within the western worldorder.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  There's often a certain aspect of "no-one ever got fired for buying IBM" to these sorts of things.
- toyg 2y ago
  The F-35 has never been one of the "most commercially successful airframes". 670 sold is actually a pretty low number, considering its supposedly multi-role capabilities and its rare VTOL feature. The sales pipeline started being agreed when the plane was still a concept, and it's almost exclusively a feature of American foreign policy: the US government worked hard, over almost 40 years, to ensure a significant part of design and production costs (and risks resulting from such) would be absorbed by allies through guaranteed sales. NATO countries have been under huge continuous and sustained pressure to buy it and to standardize their systems around it. Quite a few European governments found themselves struggling to publicly justify their choices in this matter, because in the end it mostly boiled down to "the Americans told us to buy it or else". The F-35 project simply would not be allowed to fail in the market. As far as I know, no other weapon ever enjoyed such massive and forceful support by so many US administrations throughout the decades.
  - alfiedotwtf 2y ago
    > the US government worked hard, over almost 40 years, to ensure a significant part of design and production costs (and risks resulting from such) would be absorbed by allies through guaranteed sales. NATO countries have been under huge continuous and sustained pressure to buy it and to standardize their systems around it. Quite a few European governments found themselves struggling to publicly justify their choices in this matter, because in the end it mostly boiled down to "the Americans told us to buy it or else". So, it’s SAP but for national defence
- aeonik 2y ago
  4,600 F16s have been built, obviously it has the time advantage, but still, once F35 beats that number, I think it will be at the top.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  The same, or similar 'mechanisms' which enabled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals ?
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  > What could explain this sales pipeline Let’s not beat around the bush. Protection money
- maxglute 2y ago
  That's low #s exports relative F16 etc granted 35s more expensive, countries now spend less on defense, but you'd think a joint program would end up with greater procurement from partners. Regardless, what choice is there? JSF program killed competitors/programs in many countries with domestic fighter base and after 20 years of sunk cost, options were limited to 1 exportable 5th gen fighter, doesn't matter how of much system ends up lemon. There's a reason EVERY F35 operator that could, is partnering up to pursue their own next gen multi-role program, in the mean time they're stuck with F35, and US operational controls (i.e. US generates mission data files for all operators). There seems to be disatisfaction behind the scenes, not just from DoD against LH, but operators against US oversight. Much of it just can't be loudly vocalized, i.e. think of domestic politics / drama if notion F35s is still an expensive, unreliable boondoggle, that killed your domestic fighter bsae AND can't be operated without US approval... it's borderline treasonous.
- Reubachi 2y ago
  A totally incorrect statement. Super Hornet and Viper both dwarf this number by 10x and in every operational theatre in the world are exactly as competent as JSF. They currently are selling far more in every market than F35b, which is the most sold f35 to everyone's suprise. No market is seeking out f35 specifically for nato congruence/stealth. (Though, The SVTOL variant is a pleasant market-friendly surprise for Lockheed. Turns out, many nations operate sub-fleet carriers that can handle harriers, ospreys, f35b.) Recall that the JSF was drafted in the 90s, and an operational prototype existed in 2002. The JFS program can be both impressive and way too expensive at the same time. It doesn't need to be setting records to justify it's existance.
  - M3L0NM4N 2y ago
    You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if you say the F35B is the most sold F35 variant. It’s the F35A*. It’s also STOVL, not SVTOL. You slapped an S in front of VTOL instead of thinking about what the acronym really means. *From f35.com - Designed to operate from conventional runways, the F-35A is the most common variant operated by the United States Air Force and most international allied customers.
mrtksn 2y ago
Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can build detection and tracking systems in those wavelengths instead of pretending that its invisible because its hard to detect at radar wavelengths. Why just not drop any manned vehicles and go for the remote control + AI? What is the logic? Sunken cost fallacy? Military industrial complex needs it? The only thing I can think of is the political implications of downing plane with a soldier on board.
- 542354234235 2y ago
  First, visible/invisible isn’t a dichotomic distinction, it is a spectrum. Stealth isn’t to make an aircraft “invisible” to radar, it is to reduce its radar signature, which means that radar can’t see an aircraft at all beyond a certain distance, and can make it more difficult to identify and track at closer locations. What that means is that a stealth aircraft can fly “in between” radar stations without being detected, where other aircraft couldn’t, and get closer to an adversaries location before being detected, and be more difficult/take more time to identify it as hostile and engage. That adds up to being able to strike many more of your adversary’s targets and escape without them being able to meaningfully engage you and gives you a significant advantage. It is just like regular camouflage. You cant just throw on a camo jacket and walk around Walmart and be “invisible”. But in the woods, with the right camo, and the right technique, you can move very “stealthily” and if it allows you to get in a position to kill your enemy before they can see and kill you, that is the point. Second, is an issue with AI I didn’t see anyone bring up. Related to my first point, stealth is about minimizing signatures and that that includes sending/receiving signals. Situations where an aircraft is operating in a highly contested environment means it may not be able to communicate reliably or safely and maintain stealth (they do have MADL but I am sure it can’t work 100% and maintain stealth perfectly). You would have to delegate complete shooting authority to the onboard AI. That is very difficult for many reasons, just one being accountability (who is responsible if an AI commits a war crime?).

33 points by nf3 2y ago

nf3 2y ago

https://archive.ph/0toiV https://archive.ph/0toiV

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

hunglee2 2y ago

Yet despite these problems, the F-35 remains the most commercially successful airframe in the world, with over 670 sold, and 2,500 on order from US-allied countries all over the world. What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

fusivdh 2y ago
There's no other fifth generation fighter available for export to the richest countries in the world? Corruption to pass trials. Corruption to get sales? No matter how much waste, a trillion dollars is bound to create something with some value? It's junk, in the sense that we could have gotten a much better airframe for less sad money.
MaxPock 2y ago
You buy F-35s to protect yourself from the mafia .
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
formerly_proven 2y ago
> the boondoggle this article implies it to be? I highly recommend reading contemporary reporting on what are considered wildly successful aircraft (like the teen series F-14/15/16). Hint: Just change one number and they're indistinguishable from reporting on the F-35.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  the F-14 was an expensive hanger queen and was retired rapidly. the F-16 is still seeing use and was rotated out years after the F-14. but yeah all fighters have bugs, often a lot of them
sofixa 2y ago
It's the most modern jet that can be acquired. The Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon are all very good jets, but they're around half a generation behind; they're still popular and acquired by various countries because they better fit their requirements (or because the US doesn't want to sell them F-35).
ossobuco 2y ago
> What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? The overwhelming USA sphere of influence over its "allies". I don't really see a NATO member buying new fighter jets from China or Russia instead without that causing a big ruckus.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dotancohen 2y ago
  Sweden sells a really nice NATO-compatible multirole jet.
  - euler_angles 2y ago
    The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft, meaning it isn't certified to carry nuclear weapons. This makes it a tough sell to NATO nations who must align themselves to NATO's strategic goals [0], which call for nations to contribute dual-capable aircraft. Nor is the Gripen independent from US supply chains. It uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E engine. If you're a NATO nation looking for a non-US jet that can satisfy your dual-capable needs, your only option is the Rafale. [0] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pd...
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      > The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft I did not realize that, thank you. I simply assumed that with the bomber role came the ability to carry a small (<500 pound) tactical nuke. Is this more of a certification issue or an actual hardware issue?
      - euler_angles 2y ago
        It's mostly a certification issue. There are some hardware changes and integration work that has to be done, but the biggest obstacle is that the certification work is done in and by the US. So there's a diplomatic element.
orwin 2y ago
For the first sales (Australia and either Norway or sweden, i dont remember), the US and lockheed Martin hid away the issues and lied on operating cost and availability. For sales to NATO: you have to buy a plane that can carry the US bomb if you don't have one yourself (despite the fact that nukes will probably never be launched from aircrafts if at all). For sales against competition, i don't have a lot of data, but you can check the Swiss 2022 competition between the F16, F18, Rafale, Gripen and F35, public data is scarce but basically, the Rafale and F18 would have been better on most points except VTOL and stealth. The choice however was probably economic (as while VTOL is nice, Swiss short airports are still longer than carriers, and stealth isn't that much of a factor in defense, especially in the Alps): they bought planes for less than half the price NATO countries did, and 60% of the money will be spent locally: basically 20% of the cost Germany and other NATO countries paid.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  stealth isn't that much of a factor in defense, especially in the Alps I'm far from an expert. Can you elaborate? I know that mountains can help planes evade radar and missiles. But any fighters used in a defense role (against Russia presumably) are definitely going to need to contend with (Russia's apparently rather capable) air to air missiles. I think they might well need to deal with SAM as well. Sx00 batteries are portable and presumably an invading Russian force would be bringing them along for the ride with ground forces. So I don't know; stealth seems like one of the most important things these days, if you're planning on engaging anybody with modern air to air missiles.
  - orwin 2y ago
    If you only have to contend in air battle and do not need ground control, like in a mountainous area, multipurpose jets will likely act as mobile SAM batteries. The range of METEOR missiles make it unlikely that your plane will be detected before it has time to launch, and even then, will be out of range of SAMs. The issue is that stealth mostly make sense on SEAD/DEAD (where frankly, BVR missiles and AWACS make even more sense), or bombing runs. It isn't useful in CAS where having more ordonance is better (if your enemy only have manpads and VSHORAD you are safe with any modern plane), only SHORAD with more than 15km range are threatening, and nowaday you have missiles that will target those from a longer range. Just equip yourself with those, destroy SHORAD SAM/Radars with ARMs, engage enemy army with Apaches (or if you have the means, LORA), go back, refuel, go again (that, you can't do with f35 in Beast mode, because they overheat. Other plane have refueling issues too, but none of them have that long of a downtime between runs) Overall, i really dislike the idea of multipurpose stealth jets: it limit your electronic warfare capacity (the issues with the new f35 radar array were caused by its nose profile), it isn't usefull for real CAS, and it greatly increase costs. To me, you can go two ways. The first would be multiple costly, but dedicated planes that will be superior to your ennemy in their field: the F22, or the B2 (or the A-10). I even like the B21 concept, i'm not anti-US planes, i like the f35 engine (well, no, not really, i think it isn't safe, and make emergency landing extremely dangerous, but i like the principle behind), i dislike the motivation or idea behind the f35. The other planes the USAF have are great, and have reasons to be as they are. The second would be to have a multirole jet, cheap, with high availability, easy to maintain, to train all of your pilot on it (with 200 real flying hours/year, not simulator, wink wink Russia). Unless you fight the USA, this will likely be enough to at least give you a fighting chance. stealth here is just another cost factor that will lead you to have less planes, less pilots, and more operating costs. The reason Switzerland chose the f35 is that it was sold at 45% of its original cost, and with the promise to have 60% of that cost spent locally, to swiss industry.
invalidname 2y ago
The article is sensational and deeply misleading. Yes, the plane has a lot of bugs. It's got complicated software and hardware. You can't compare it to the relatively simple older designs that didn't deal with stealth. Yes they don't need to test dogfights because war isn't a video game. When the enemy sees the f35 it is after it already sent the missile in your direction. You don't need to dogfight if you're an invisible ghost that can kill from a distance. The f16 had a ton of bugs such as flipping over when south of the equator. It's a much better machine now and the f35 has all the makings to be a similar leap forward.
- nosianu 2y ago
  > The f16 had a ton of bugs such as flipping over when south of the equator. In the simulator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541685 The page that comment links to lists some (minor) problems found on the real plane too though.
imwillofficial 2y ago
Unfortunately we do not measure combat weapons in terms of commercial success. We measure them in terms of lethality and reliability.
- fyt2024 2y ago
  [dead]
belter 2y ago
Microsoft enters the room....
aa-jv 2y ago
>What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? A lack of actual proven fight-testing.
- euler_angles 2y ago
  But it did the most extensive flight test program for anything in history [0]. I worked on this program for years. I do not think a lack of flight testing is the problem. The problems are many, but in short: 1) Lack of competent, forceful oversight from the program office. DOT&E reports about the F-35 program have, for years, given the program office recommendations that it has failed to follow. 2) A prime contractor (Lockheed-Martin) that restricts access to its data. The F-35 program had to sue LM in federal court to get access to the necessary data to make the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) fully functional. In the end, the case was settled, but only after six years of battle. The report linked in the parent article describes how maintainers are not allowed access to servicing procedures that they have on other aircraft. I have seen this personally in flight test. Even something like a gear swing requires an LM certified Field Services Engineer to conduct. 3) A completely broken software release process. For many years in developmental flight test, we received software builds that were just entirely broken, as in, the jet would not start with that software loaded. The C2D2 process was advertised as fixing this, but really it was just a new name for the same old fly-fix-fly process. The parent report details entire versions that were skipped in the IOT&E process because they were so buggy. The program could have turned JSE into the final stop for new software builds before hitting the fleet, but it chose to pivot entirely into training instead. I could keep going. A decade working in a program like this gives you a long list of things to talk about. But I'll stop here for now. [0] https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-04-12-F-35-Completes-Most-Comprehensive-Flight-Test-Program-in-Aviation-History https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-04-12-F-35-Completes-Mo...
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    I meant, tested in actual combat against real adversaries, not test teams, but you've pointed out there are worse issues at stake.
mrtksn 2y ago
> What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be? Easy, desire to please American politicians to fetch political support from the USA and strengthen your position as military ally. Ideally, you will be looking so scary that you wouldn’t have to actually use the plane.
- fsloth 2y ago
  ” you will be looking so scary that you wouldn’t have to actually use the plane.” I’d say this is the main intent. But not only because of the political aspects. AFAIK the plane is intended to be used like an ultra-mobile target aquisition and launch platform designed to engage targets Really Far Away and then return to base (any base since it’s NATO compatible). It’s not really supposed to engage in Top Gun -style dogfighting. So the main question is the capability of the radar and the missiles you carry, not necessarily the air frame itself. And as I understand those are fit for purpose. Ofc if you are launching missiles far away for defensive purposes surely you could do it a lot cheaper, and that I would see as the main point of critique. I’m not saying the issues are not issues, but as a non-expert-paying-customer (my country bought 64 of them I think) as long as you get airborn, acquire target lock and can launch missile, you are more or less using the offering as promised.
DocTomoe 2y ago
Is it? The 737 has been sold 12000 times, with thousands of orders in the pipeline. The A320 is not far behind, but only got introduced twenty years later Even if you just consider military airframes, the MiG-21 has been built 11000 times, and is/was used by more than 50 operators world-wide, all of which have paid for the privilege. Then there's the C-130, with 2500 units produced and operated by 70 countries. The first American Fighter jet would be the F-4 Phantom II, with 5000 units built, and used extensively abroad. The F-16 has 4600 units built up to now and is used by more than 25 countries. (I'm ignoring the P-51 with its 15000 units here because they were mostly used by the US and rarely sold abroad). tl;dr: The F-35 is not the most commercially successful airframe in the world, in fact, it does not even come close.
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Its basically a arcade-chip tradeable for us-protection within the western worldorder.
rsynnott 2y ago
There's often a certain aspect of "no-one ever got fired for buying IBM" to these sorts of things.
toyg 2y ago
The F-35 has never been one of the "most commercially successful airframes". 670 sold is actually a pretty low number, considering its supposedly multi-role capabilities and its rare VTOL feature. The sales pipeline started being agreed when the plane was still a concept, and it's almost exclusively a feature of American foreign policy: the US government worked hard, over almost 40 years, to ensure a significant part of design and production costs (and risks resulting from such) would be absorbed by allies through guaranteed sales. NATO countries have been under huge continuous and sustained pressure to buy it and to standardize their systems around it. Quite a few European governments found themselves struggling to publicly justify their choices in this matter, because in the end it mostly boiled down to "the Americans told us to buy it or else". The F-35 project simply would not be allowed to fail in the market. As far as I know, no other weapon ever enjoyed such massive and forceful support by so many US administrations throughout the decades.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  > the US government worked hard, over almost 40 years, to ensure a significant part of design and production costs (and risks resulting from such) would be absorbed by allies through guaranteed sales. NATO countries have been under huge continuous and sustained pressure to buy it and to standardize their systems around it. Quite a few European governments found themselves struggling to publicly justify their choices in this matter, because in the end it mostly boiled down to "the Americans told us to buy it or else". So, it’s SAP but for national defence
aeonik 2y ago
4,600 F16s have been built, obviously it has the time advantage, but still, once F35 beats that number, I think it will be at the top.
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
The same, or similar 'mechanisms' which enabled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals ?
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
> What could explain this sales pipeline Let’s not beat around the bush. Protection money
maxglute 2y ago
That's low #s exports relative F16 etc granted 35s more expensive, countries now spend less on defense, but you'd think a joint program would end up with greater procurement from partners. Regardless, what choice is there? JSF program killed competitors/programs in many countries with domestic fighter base and after 20 years of sunk cost, options were limited to 1 exportable 5th gen fighter, doesn't matter how of much system ends up lemon. There's a reason EVERY F35 operator that could, is partnering up to pursue their own next gen multi-role program, in the mean time they're stuck with F35, and US operational controls (i.e. US generates mission data files for all operators). There seems to be disatisfaction behind the scenes, not just from DoD against LH, but operators against US oversight. Much of it just can't be loudly vocalized, i.e. think of domestic politics / drama if notion F35s is still an expensive, unreliable boondoggle, that killed your domestic fighter bsae AND can't be operated without US approval... it's borderline treasonous.
Reubachi 2y ago
A totally incorrect statement. Super Hornet and Viper both dwarf this number by 10x and in every operational theatre in the world are exactly as competent as JSF. They currently are selling far more in every market than F35b, which is the most sold f35 to everyone's suprise. No market is seeking out f35 specifically for nato congruence/stealth. (Though, The SVTOL variant is a pleasant market-friendly surprise for Lockheed. Turns out, many nations operate sub-fleet carriers that can handle harriers, ospreys, f35b.) Recall that the JSF was drafted in the 90s, and an operational prototype existed in 2002. The JFS program can be both impressive and way too expensive at the same time. It doesn't need to be setting records to justify it's existance.
- M3L0NM4N 2y ago
  You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if you say the F35B is the most sold F35 variant. It’s the F35A*. It’s also STOVL, not SVTOL. You slapped an S in front of VTOL instead of thinking about what the acronym really means. *From f35.com - Designed to operate from conventional runways, the F-35A is the most common variant operated by the United States Air Force and most international allied customers.

mrtksn 2y ago

Elon Musk recently made some remarks about F-35 on Twitter: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860574377013838033 It's exactly what I was thinking about: Having a pilot onboard is overhead and its a limiting factor for the flight envelope as you have to keep it alive. Besides, it's not invisible despite calling it that. It's visible in the visible spectrum and hearable in the human hearing range, which means that you can build detection and tracking systems in those wavelengths instead of pretending that its invisible because its hard to detect at radar wavelengths. Why just not drop any manned vehicles and go for the remote control + AI? What is the logic? Sunken cost fallacy? Military industrial complex needs it? The only thing I can think of is the political implications of downing plane with a soldier on board.

542354234235 2y ago
First, visible/invisible isn’t a dichotomic distinction, it is a spectrum. Stealth isn’t to make an aircraft “invisible” to radar, it is to reduce its radar signature, which means that radar can’t see an aircraft at all beyond a certain distance, and can make it more difficult to identify and track at closer locations. What that means is that a stealth aircraft can fly “in between” radar stations without being detected, where other aircraft couldn’t, and get closer to an adversaries location before being detected, and be more difficult/take more time to identify it as hostile and engage. That adds up to being able to strike many more of your adversary’s targets and escape without them being able to meaningfully engage you and gives you a significant advantage. It is just like regular camouflage. You cant just throw on a camo jacket and walk around Walmart and be “invisible”. But in the woods, with the right camo, and the right technique, you can move very “stealthily” and if it allows you to get in a position to kill your enemy before they can see and kill you, that is the point. Second, is an issue with AI I didn’t see anyone bring up. Related to my first point, stealth is about minimizing signatures and that that includes sending/receiving signals. Situations where an aircraft is operating in a highly contested environment means it may not be able to communicate reliably or safely and maintain stealth (they do have MADL but I am sure it can’t work 100% and maintain stealth perfectly). You would have to delegate complete shooting authority to the onboard AI. That is very difficult for many reasons, just one being accountability (who is responsible if an AI commits a war crime?).