The Economist takes a dismal view of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program:
The latest cost estimates from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), published in May to coincide with a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the F-35 programme, were shocking. The average price of each plane in “then-year” dollars had risen from $69m in 2001 to $133m today. Adding in $56.4 billion of development costs, the price rises from $81m to $156m. The GAO report concluded that since 2007 development costs had risen by 26% and the timetable had slipped by five years. Mr Gates’s 2010 restructuring helped. But still, “after more than nine years in development and four in production, the JSF programme has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature and the system is reliable”. Apart from the STOVL version’s problems, the biggest issue was integrating and testing the software that runs the aircraft’s electronics and sensors. At the hearing, Senator John McCain described it as “a train wreck” and accused Lockheed Martin of doing “an abysmal job”…
The bipartisan fiscal responsibility and reform commission appointed by Mr Obama last year said that not all military aircraft need to be stealthy. It suggested cancelling the STOVL version of the F-35 and cutting the rest of its order by half, while buying cheaper F-16s and F-18s to keep numbers up. If America decided it could live with such a “high-low” mix, foreign customers might follow suit.
The danger for Lockheed Martin is that if orders start to tumble, the F-35 could go into a death spiral. The fewer planes governments order, the more each one will cost and the less attractive the F-35 will be. This happened to the even more sophisticated and expensive F-22. By cutting its order from 750 to 183, the Pentagon helped to drive the programme cost per aircraft of the F-22 up from $149m to $342m.
In a separate article in the same magazine, the STOVL variant takes particularly sharp hits:
The radical answer would be to abandon the entire F-35 programme. But it is too late for that: it would mean America relying on updated versions of aircraft based on 40-year-old designs. However, the size of the planned order for what is almost certain to be America’s last manned strike fighter makes little sense and should be cut. One immediate priority should be cancelling the jump-jet variant of the F-35 for the Marines. It has been the main cause of the technical and weight problems that have bedevilled the programme. Having been put on two-year “probation” by Mr Gates in January, this version should be put out of its misery.
The good news, if any is to be found, is that China’s new J-15 naval fighter isn’t all that and a bag of chips, according to defense analyst David Axe, writing in The Diplomat:
If Shi Lang is meant to operate in a sea control role, clearing the ocean of enemy vessels, then it could find itself at a disadvantage compared to rival naval forces. The C-602 has a range of around 250 miles. So a Chinese carrier battle group could strike surface targets at a distance of 500 miles.
A US carrier group launching F-18s armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles could strike from a distance of at least 600 miles. Factor in aerial refueling – and the fact that the Harpoon is light enough for a single F-18 to carry two – and the US advantage increases dramatically. The Su-33 is simply not an ideal fighter for ramp-equipped carriers.
It’s telling that within a few years, the Chinese will be the only country operating Su-33s or its derivatives from carriers. The Russians decided to replace the Su-33 with a version of the much smaller MiG-29 after realizing that the MiG had similar performance, but Kuznetsov could carry many more of them. The Indians, too, are buying a MiG-29 variant to replace their Harriers.
Future Chinese carriers could include a catapult. Indeed, the likelihood that carriers after Shi Lang will be catapult-equipped is sure to increase, once the PLAN sees firsthand how limited its J-15s really are.
That buys us another 10-15 years, maybe.
Ironically, they cancelled the F22 completely based on the premise that they’d order plenty of JSFs to fill the gap.
I know, this irony deserving of fine literature. Unfortunately, it’s our reality…
Fact is stranger than fiction!
Exactly. In fact, back in ’99 when the attacks on the F-22 started coming in hot and heavy, Rumsfeld, Schlesinger, Weinberger, and others said this is just a ploy – those attacking the F-22 have no intention of seeing the then JSF built in large numbers, they’ll use any club they can to kill this program. Just as they are doing today.
Gates should have known this. He had to know it.
I’ve said for over 10 years that we would have been far better off funding F-22 fully and building up-rated models of F-16 for USAF. That would have stuck it to Navy (if Super Hornets means being stuck), but as it is Navy may not get many ‘first day of the war’ fighters, anyways.
IMO, it would have been best had Boeing won the JSF contest. Then LM would have fought tooth and nail to keep the F-22. Also the X-32 looked nothing like a fighter, whereas the F-35 gives the illusion of one, hence making it easier to justify killing real fighter program.
Regarding the B, didn’t one of the Blackfive crew demonstrate a few months back that the oft-quoted cost figures per aircraft represent the lifetime expense rather than the “off the lot” purchase price? I’ll look for that and post it if I can find it.
Regarding the J-15? Well, all I can say is Thanks be to God for the breathing room; I hope that DoD doesn’t waste it, the lobbyists don’t sell is some lemons when we need cherries, or that the politicians, in their infinite
wisdomstupidity, don’t do what Gates warned them against and cut the budget further than he has already.Amazingly, Lockheed is involved in two of these problem programs; the LCS and F-35. Coincidence borne from the lack of competition, or LM milking the system for all it’s worth?
Well, it IS a train wreck. And I really pity VADM Venlet, who got handed this mess after most of the good options were closed off for him.
That being said, it’s the B version that is probably the safest.
The Air Force would, I suspect, cheerfully trade F-35A for additional F-22s and late-model F-16s. Say 360 of the former and 1,000 of the latter.
The Navy is in worse shape…we have to develop a high-end machine. And if I were running it, I’d insist on carte blanche, both in requirements AND IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS. That means NO two years of begging the JROC to get requirements approved. NO delays while the DAB members were rounded up. And enough money to do the development program properly, instead of running the test program on a shoestring.
But the Marines have nothing to replace the Harrier. Unless someone in the NCA and Congress is willing to open full-scale bureaucratic war on the Marines and force them to take what’s available, they’ll demand a one-for-one replacement. Which means F-35B.
None of those guys, not ONE has any reason to believe a word the navy writes or breathes about any future acquisition plan or program.
Agreed on the additional F-22′s and numbers. Would it be better, with more economy of scale, for the USAF to by F-18E/F’s and perhaps F-15SE’s instead of F-16′s? Me, I like the fact that all three have two engines and can carry a greater weapons loadout. Then again the F-16I is pretty formidable.
I don’t think you’ll see anything like 1000 additional birds. F-22/F18-E/F/F-15SE say 360/180/240/240 would be quite the force.
Just curious, but when are we going to dump the Harpoon and get a decent ASM? I’ve played a pretty good naval tactical sim for a long time and put simply Harpoon isn’t that good against a tough target with any reasonable SAM capability. And that 80 mile range is kind of wishful; more like 65. It’s easily foxed and it’s warhead is on the small side.
Too small. Harpoon wasn’t bad when it first came out. We shoulda had a nextr gen ASM by now.
Why yes, it was our own humble scribe that brought us the report of Blackfive’s analysis:
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/05/16/unit-recurring-flyaway/
Result? More like 65 mil off the lot, compared to 50 mil for a 4th generation fighter/attack aircraft. Only a pittance more for the stealthiness!
Don’t give up on the plane(s) quite yet.
How many years? The Chinese have less workers standing around doing nothing in their factories and have grown (and keep growing) engineers in quantity. I wouldn’t depend on those 10 or 15 years.
Also in this case, the over-sell of STOVL. Where do you get 7 tons of gas for every sortie in an “austere” environment? I guess that definition (used in the over-sell) will be different than most think.
I like David Axe… but “defense analyst”? I haven’t seen that.
I used to read alot of Bill Gunston back in the 80′s, when he was constantly harping on how USAF had no STOVL fighter, and how all that tactical aviation would be gone 10 minutes into WWIII when a 500 kt warhead initiated at the cross in the runways. He never addressed the horrific logistical problems of operating Harriers in the field on a sustained wartime basis. In fact, the RAF never did so except as a PR stunt for short duration. Their Harriers always operated from regular bases – cuz that’s where all the stuff is. Gunston also never addressed how perfectly unnecessary, even useless, tactical aircraft would have been after that 500 kt initiated – after that, we’d have a few hours of strategic nuclear warfare and then all spend decades picking up the pieces.
“SLD: As a Harrier pilot, could you comment on the potential arrival of the F-35Bs [Eglin AFB]?
Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn’t been able to achieve yet or can’t do and people completely missing what we’ve already achieved.
The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it’s easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we’ve never ever been there before. We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.
It’s an amazing engineering achievement; we’ve already accomplished is completely being missed by some observers.”
http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21300
I have no idea who is speaking in the first video, but I have to doubt the accuracy when contracts are out for the development of special take-off platforms capable of withstanding the heat:
http://www.l3stratis.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=392:cesf35&catid=155:costengineeringservices&Itemid=54
I found the following online, but it correlates exactly with what I’ve heard elsewhere (from pilots and engineers privy to that information)
Excerpted from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Interim Technical Guidance on the F-35B/C (January 12th, 2010):
Runways, Taxiways, and Parking Aprons:
F-35B versions of the JSF have integrated power packages (IPP) that point down towards the pavement (the F-35C IPP points upwards and is of no concern for the pavements). The current version of the IPP in those two aircraft generates an exhaust under Burn mode which results in pavement surface temperatures in excess of those generated by the F/A-18 (and B-1) auxiliary power unit (APU). The IPP is always on, and in the Burn mode whenever the aircraft is stopped. This IPP exhaust will result in accelerated decay of both asphalt and concrete: for asphalt it could result in very quick rutting and accelerated oxidation, and for concrete it could result in scaling after a few months or years, depending on exposure time, exposure cycles, wind, precipitation, ambient temperature, etc. Therefore, for F-35B aircraft: -The runway ends shall be concrete -Holdshorts on taxiways shall be concrete -Parking aprons be shall be concrete -The concrete shall be heat resistant to an exhaust similar to that of an F/A-18 APU, per UFGS 32 13 13.03 (Airfields and Heavy-Duty Concrete Pavement Less Than 10000 Cubic Yards) or Air Force Engineering Technical Letter ETL 02-7.
VTOL Pads: The F-35B, or short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL), version of the JSF is capable of both vertical take-off (VTO) and VL, although take-off will typically be via STO. For landing, VL (or VTOL) pads will be used. This pads will be exposed to 1700ºF and high velocity (Mach #1) exhaust. This exhaust will melt the top surface of asphalt pavements, and is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL. Therefore high heat resistant materials are required for the pavement and for the joint sealants. At the present time there are no identified sealants that can survive a significant number of VLs, and the pads shall be constructed using continuously reinforced concrete (CRC). The pads shall have a minimum 96-ft by 96-ft (or 100-ft by 100-ft) CRC center, with continuous reinforcement in both directions to insure that all cracks and joints remain closed (the center is surrounded by a 50-ft wide paved area). High heat resistant materials for the pavement have been identified but are still being tested. For the latest information on those materials, contact the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC ESC) or the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA).”
I’d be shocked if that much has changed in only one and a half years’ time.
Crap I meant to respond to your other comment below about the concrete, not this one….skip ahead to that one please
Notice the last bit, the materials needed to withstand that level of heat are still in the development process. IOW, concrete that can withstand that level of heat hasn’t even been invented yet.
Liz, Thanks. I have copies of those items (L3 and concrete/apron/hangar works). The speaker in the video clip is the LiftFan Designer Paul Bevilaqua giving an hour long lecture about his work on the LiftFan.
The L3 Stratis people are stating perhaps the obvious that high quality concrete will be needed but I think their rhetoric is over the top in light of the video comments. Bearing in mind the quote about the LiftFan taking power/heat from exhaust stream also.
The tarmac builders are just that – not ship builders. For example the V-22 issues onboard have been mitigated successfully. In my flying days the deHavilland Vampire had a downward pointing exhaust. Even at idle power it would soon melt the macadam tarmac. The aircraft could only be stopped on concrete. No big deal (there is more to that story due to very bad Vampire braking system but not relevant here).
In the same hangar/apron report it is noted that the IPP issue is no more of a problem than the Hornet equivalent. Also the IPP exhaust on the B model is being modified to mitigate this heat issue.
Many former A4G/SHAR pilots have told of being able to walk on the Harrier touchdown spot more or less as soon as they could get to if from their position out of the way of the exhaust stream on deck. The Wind Over the Deck will help dissipate these effects remember. Ashore vertical landings will be done to special pads as noted. Still and all early days – testing continues…
Has anyone seen a comparison between the F-15E/F vs F-35A? I’m a bit curious about what we might be losing.
As for the Chinese carriers, I don’t think we have as long as we like to think. Remember, from USS Langley to the Battle of Midway was 16 years. From a cold start to a war-winning capability. And the Chinese can leverage American, Russian, and even Brazilian experience to cut that. They need practice, but the theory is already developed.
(rolls eyes) Mike, you could have made the same argument for the Soviet Union two generations ago, only changing a couple of words: “And the
ChineseRussians can leverage American, British, and even Japanese experience to cut that. They need practice, but the theory is already developed.”…And all that theory worked so well for the Soviets, no?
It would…if the Russians went to sea. Practice makes perfect, and the Russians haven’t gotten much practice.
I suspect the Shi Lang will be spending a lot of time under way.
What I’ve seen the chinese build on their own – and it’s quite a lot – makes me think 10 to 15 years is about right. To quote a GE tech rep when I tried to get him to fly on a chinese airline, “I work on their engines, I do not fly on their planes.” As for people standing around in their factories, a factor of 10 watchers to 1 worker is what I see.
Kill the JSF. Everything spirals abysmally from the B requirement. Send the braniacs behind this to jail. This is a half trillion dollar mistake.
Tell Boeing if they fix the Superbugs wings for free, they’ll get another 300 orders for the Navy. Let the AF add another 240 F22, and a mix of 700 F15 Silent Eagle / F16i. Start an old school Skunkworks style program for FA-XX next generation naval FIGHTER/attack (Big F, small A) using existing technologies.
Break up LockMart.
We can’t afford anything else. We need new airframes now. This is like a Monkey Shagging a Football.
Kill the LCS. Get the DDX in the water and start chasing hurricanes. If she weathers fine, build a cheaper version.
Get a bunch of retired AF/Navy 05s to go and find cost sensible solutions.
With this clusterbleep of this past decade too many nattering nassholes of negativity have a right to beyotch about bleeped up procurement. We’re broke, We have to cure our Optical Rectumitis REAL FAST.
No, i have not been drinking but I’m really thinking of starting tonight.
Agree on your points. I think the USAF needs to go big on a Next Gen bomber and request 180 of them. I would love to see an updated B-70 with frontal and side stealth. Work out a way to supercruise at Mach 2 and let the fun start.
I’d keep the trimaran LCS for the Coast Guard. I’d rather see money put into STANFLEX stuff like the Esbern Snare vessels. The best outcome would be to work with the Brits, Canucks, and Australians on a common design Type 26 to get an economy of scale on the numbers built.
Oh, my Stars & Garters!!
Have you no sense of history, Phalanx!? Let us examine the B-52, XB-70, B-1, and B-2. The XB-70 was obsolete while still in development, given advances in SAM missiles and the MiG-25. The B-1 started as a junior version of the XB-70, then was downgraded to a sub-sonic penetrator. The B-2 is almost literally a gold-plated hangar queen. Both are far more expensive to operate than the BUFF, and demonstrate far lower levels of readiness. In fact, the B-2 needs to be in effect re-skinned after every mission to maintain stealth capability.
Even a casual examination of ordnance delivered on-target during the southwest-Asian wars shows the decrepit B-52 to be far superior both in terms of payload and cost of operation. What we need are bomb trucks, not high-tech mission-killers. This is a classic case of “buy Ford, not Ferrari.”
Any attempt to meld a bleeding-edge Valkyrie with stealth would reproduce the LCS fiasco, but at two or three greater orders of magnitude.
The MiG-25 was developed to counter the B-70 based on specs the KGB and GRU could ferret out. It didn’t come out until well after the valkyrie was killed. The 70 wasn’t obsolete while it was being developed, but it was out of date by the end of the Vietnam war. So was the B-52, although it was modified to keep going.
I’ll have to disagree.
I worked on the 117 program and if (big if!) the new bomber program was run the same way it could be done. The tech is there.
There were crews in our latest big war (Operation Iraqi Freedom. Or was it Operation Polish Freedom?) who flew B-1′s and were talking about how cool it would have been to have a Mach 3 dash capability.
I do agree with the need for bomb trucks. I also think there is a need for a small force of high tech stealthy birds that can hold China’s rear areas under threat of attack. China has a large area to reconstitute and reinforce from that right now we’d have problems dealing with.
Then again a large fleet of MQ-170′s might do the job just as well.
I think the AF needs a stealthy 787 or C17 or a cheap B2 using a lot more conventional stuff. We can’t afford another B2, B1, or god forbid, Valkyrie.
We need long range, semi stealthy airframes that don’t cost an arm & a warship. Couple this with some long range strike missile and longer range glide munitions.
We need cheap, reliable.
Sadly, physics says no to cheap and large stealthy aircraft.
They should definitely cut the STOVL version at least.
Last I heard there wasn’t a runway or aircraft carrier in the world capable of withstanding the heat it gives off.
F-35B Landing on Concrete[from STOVL Engine Designer Lecture]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wSeIz9uL8
“…Lockheed Martin has developed a STOVL lift system that uses a vertically oriented Lift Fan. A two-stage low-pressure turbine on the engine delivers the horsepower to drive the STOVL Lift Fan. The Lift Fan generates a column of cool air that produces nearly 20,000 pounds of lifting power using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow, along with an equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft. The Lift Fan has a clutch that engages for STOVL operations and a telescoping “D” -shaped hood to provide thrust deflection. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced by about 200 degrees compared to traditional STOVL systems….”
http://ve.ida.org/rtoc/open/SIP/jsf.html
Press releases and softball interviews are all nice.
A real functioning aircraft is a very long way off… and at what price for a wildly over-hyped capability?
Show me a test pilot (military or industry) that stated in a public statement— “This jet sucks”.
It won’t happen. Although I am sure the non-public test cards and reports are interesting.
Nope – you show me. Thanks.
Since this is nothing but a glorified jobs program, let LM go to congress and tell them that due to budgetary constraints they will be moving assembly of the F-35 to — ta dah – China!!!! we get airframes for considerably less, china doesn’t have to spend millions penetrating LM’s weak IT security to get the secret technology they need, and the taxpayers get an affordable stealthy semi-capable aircraft. Win – Win – Win.
Liz, As I recall the video (only a snippet from an hour long lecture available on ‘DEWline’ some time back) the LiftFan Designer says that concrete spalls at 1,000 degrees whereas the temperature on the computer simulation (at that time) was only at 600 degrees. All the hoohaa about ginormous heat implies that the afterburner is in use, which may be true on the runway or during tethered engine test runups (conventional) but not during a vertical/short landing when the afterburner cannot be engaged when the LiftFan is in use, nor in a short takeoff either.
For hangar builders and concrete/tarmac makers the advice is to use the best materials available. Whilst the downward pointing IPP is no more harmful than the equivalent on a Hornet.
Ships have coated metal decks where ‘Thermion’ has been developed to withstand the heat. All being tested soon onboard USS Wasp in your fall:
http://www.nstcenter.com/docs/PDFs/MR2010/Tuesday-1-Presentations/11-Lemieux.pdf
WRT the Russians turning to the MiG-29 to replace their Su-33′s: note that the Russians very neatly forced the Indian Navy to bankroll the development of the carrier-based MiG-29K, as part of their extortion over the INS Vikramaditya. It’s an interesting story, which I covered in my Weekend Warships #2 article.
Origin of ‘cool concrete’ video snippet and other stuff. ‘The man with the fan’: http://www.designnews.com/article/print/1558-The_man_with_the_fan.php
‘VIDEO: History of the F-35 by Skunk Works inventor (3 parts)’ 22 March 2010 | “ DEW Line is pleased to offer a three-part video showing a fascinating (albeit poorly-lit), 1hr lecture on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, presented last week by Skunk Works engineer Paul Bevilaqua at Johns Hopkins University’s applied physics laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.
Bevilaqua is credited with the invention of Lockheed Martin’s shaft-driven lift-fan, the core technology allowing the short-takeoff-vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B.”:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/video-history-of-the-f-35-
OOPS. Proper URL for Dew Line videos:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/video-history-of-the-f-35-by-s.html