The F-35: Biopsy - What went Wrong? What went right?

[Tranhuviya]

With the recent tweets by President Elect Trump on the subject, and the recent declaration that the first F-35 squadron is combat-ready, let's take a look at one of the most controversial subjects amongst military circles in recent memory.

The F-35 Lightning II is on the right, with the air superiority fighter it was meant to supplement, the F-22 Raptor, on the left. The F-22 was a pure air-to-air design, meant to take on other fighters and assert it's dominance over enemy airspace. The F-35, on the other hand, can carry out a wider variety of missions. So, obviously, to the big men in the five-sided asylum, the F-35 looked like a good option that could replace a good number of designs currently in the inventory.

However, the project is overcosted - and at the low, low, low cost of 98 to 116 million per - it's not exactly cheap now that it's gotten into production.

So, what exactly went wrong, and what went right? What lessons can we learn from this?

 

[AN/ALR56]

That making a single airframe for a 3 different branches with different needs and requiremnts for ''cost reduction'' is a very bad idea.
and that buying a plane from the same company who graced us with the f-104 is not very smart,especially one with a history of large bribes to guarantee contracts.

 

[millais]

trying to replace A-10 : wrong
only having one engine : wrong
inferior stealth profile: wrong
shitty VTOL system : wrong
limited payload : wrong
avionics already stolen by Chinese : wrong

 

[AN/ALR56]

trying to replace A-10 : wrong
only having one engine : wrong
inferior stealth profile: wrong
shitty VTOL system : wrong
limited payload : wrong
avionics already stolen by Chinese : wrong

• Inferior performance to planes it was supposed to replace on dogfights (Too slow, low acceleration, cant turn nor climb,etc.)
• Only stealthy at the frontal aspect
• Cant use unprepared runways or strips for VTOL like the marines corps promised it would
• Engines are too heavy for transport to aircraft carriers, skin damage forces the plane to be repaired at the lockheed plant.
• Easily hackeable online maintenance system which without it the plane cant take off.
• Only 2 AMRAAMs
• Inferior range.

 

[RJ MacReady]

I think after the F-35 the general public has woken up to the reality that the defence industry is just an agreement between elected officials and defence firms to make money. None of this hardware is ever worth anywhere close to its price tag.

You cannot condense military strategy into proper use of a few high-powered toys, contrary to what Lockheed and company would tell you. Nationalistic appeals to military and economic inferiority are what keep the public on board with these programs.

 

[Tranhuviya]

The modern Flankers (Su-35s and Su-30MKM) possess supermaneuverability, limited supercruise capabilities and thrust vectoring. They cost either 40 to 65 million or 35 to 53 million per unit. Obviously, far cheaper than Lockmart's problem child.

If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?

 

[AN/ALR56]

The modern Flankers (Su-35s and Su-30MKM) possess supermaneuverability, limited supercruise capabilities and thrust vectoring. They cost either 40 to 65 million or 35 to 53 million per unit. Obviously, far cheaper than Lockmart's problem child.

If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?

they are state owned companies who closely work with the russian air force and if they dont deliver on their promises they are fucked.
In stalin's times bad aircraft designers were simply shot or sent to gulags, after that their bureaus were just closed.

 

[millais]

The modern Flankers (Su-35s and Su-30MKM) possess supermaneuverability, limited supercruise capabilities and thrust vectoring. They cost either 40 to 65 million or 35 to 53 million per unit. Obviously, far cheaper than Lockmart's problem child.

If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?

In the US, it seems that in general, the more expensive and cost-ineffective the project, the more likely it is to be approved by the Congressional defense budgeting committees. To get the Congressmen sitting on those committees to give the greenlight, projects have to be spread out and subcontracted such that they create jobs in as many of the committee members' constituencies as possible. So although it may be cheaper and more efficient to concentrate all the production and assembly plants and associated jobs in one state, that will leave most of the Congressmen in the dust with reduced prospects for reelection. Analogously, key design elements are approved based on how much local investment and jobs they will create, not whether they will actually serve a useful purpose in the finalized design. And of course, the more expensive the contract, the happier the corporate lobbyists and their paymasters will be.

From the perspective of the design specifications issued by the Pentagon, it seems that they really fall hard for the stupid "multi-role", "jack of all trades", "Swiss army knife" trap. Just watch "Pentagon Wars", very similar story behind the Bradley IFV as the F-35.

 

[Techpriest]

I'm getting a lot of use out of this:

I guess I'm going to play devils advocate here - the F-35 is a good plane that has kinematics equal to the F/A-18 if not better along with a good range, incredible sensor integration and communication, the design and niche it fills is exactly what's needed for the Navy and Air Force to both replace old frames and provide a stop gap for the F/A-XX that will eventually replace the Hornet. It outdoes the Harrier in every way possible and provides the Marines with a supersonic multi-role fighter that can operate off of LHD's and LHA's and SVTOL runways while carrying more than the Harrier. It's the F-16 of this generation, with a serious upgrade potential and huge export market it'll fill. Am I 100% happy with it? No, it had serious development problems and cost overruns related to the B variant and rightfully should be considered a prime example of what happens when more requirements are added to a program already underway and the effect that has on costs.

At roughly 90 to 100 million per unit, the price is actually very competitive with planes like the Rafale (At $80.7 million flyaway, so really closer to 90 with all the maintenance equipment not factoring in stuff like R&D costs,), and the Eurofighter (At $95 million flyaway, with a whopping $150 million factoring in development costs) and is capable of far more than either platform in both long term upgrades, electronics, and mission capability. The other thing that the F-35 provides that both the Eurofighter and Rafale do not, (And especially not the Flanker variants who have an RCS roughly approaching that of a flying bus) is the ability to enter airspace that to other platforms would be unable to risk and hunt down SAMs to clear the way for the big ass bombers and cruise missile strikes.

The other thing to note is that what the F-35 really delivers is a large scale "stealth" threat. It might not be as good at air to air combat as the Raptor (which was designed as again, an air superiority platform without a pound for air to ground) but we're also going to have something in the range of 1000+ in the US inventory alone. Hell, it's also finally going to kill the A-10, a plane that really should have been retired around 2005 but has stuck around because it's cheap and can carry a lot of ordinance in low risk airspace. Low and Slow CAS was pretty much proven dead in 1991 with Desert Storm where despite having an impressive performance the A-10 was only let loose AFTER pretty much every SAM site was neutralized and still suffered a lot of write offs in airframes due to damage from SPAAG's and MANPAD systems to the point where they were drawn back. PGM's have sort of made the A-10 a bit redundant at this point as you don't need to fly low and slow to kill targets in CAS, you can fly at 30 to 40 thousand feet and drop a bomb through a window now.

 

[IwegalBadnik]

That making a single airframe for a 3 different branches with different needs and requiremnts for ''cost reduction'' is a very bad idea.

I am not so sure that it can be definitely labelled that all the time--but there are certain rules that you must observe if you want the Navy and, to a lesser extent, the Marines involved. Rule #1 is that the Navy must be the branch for which the aircraft is originally designed. The F-4 and A-7 were each success stories of a multi-service aircraft, and each started with the Navy.* If you want a cow, try putting a USAF aircraft into Navy service, a la the F-111B.

It's far easier to strip down a heavy Navy aircraft for land service than sturdy up a lightweight land plane for Navy service.

*Admittedly, the changes between USAF, USMC and USN variants on those two types were rather modest. Still, I think the principle holds true.

and that buying a plane from the same company who graced us with the f-104 is not very smart

Lockheed was also the company that produced the SR-71, which remains an exceptionally impressive aircraft even 50 years later--only a little over 20 years after making the P-38 too. It was quite a leap and, during the 1960s, Lockheed was probably the company with the most advanced aircraft coming out of it--in the US anyway.

As far as the bribery went, there was no excuse for it. Not something they should have ever been doing.

I personally ascribe Lockheed's mistakes in recent years as having resulted from their deviations from Kelly Johnson's rules. Rule #6 has been a particular problem--and the US government has exacerbated it by sending them blank checks. If you want results on these sorts of things, send nothing. You'll see those problems get ironed out pretty fuckin' quick once that starts happening.

Spoiler: Regarding the F-104

The F-104's record was problematic for a number of reasons--it is important to note a fair number of them were not the aircraft's fault. The Starfighter, for all the bad press it gets, did do rather well as far as sheer performance went in the conditions it was designed for in the US and in accommodating new roles despite its almost complete lack of developmental potential (which was essentially designed into it). Its record in Germany most likely is at least partially attributable to pilot quality versus aircraft performance in the postwar years and weather and visibility limitations. Canada's utter vastness was no friend to the engine with a chair on it either.

I think after the F-35 the general public has woken up to the reality that the defence industry is just an agreement between elected officials and defence firms to make money. None of this hardware is ever worth anywhere close to its price tag.

You cannot condense military strategy into proper use of a few high-powered toys, contrary to what Lockheed and company would tell you. Nationalistic appeals to military and economic inferiority are what keep the public on board with these programs.

If you look back at the history books, there was once a time when military aircraft were designed and built by the United States for the United States--no private companies involved. Of course, the Naval Aircraft Factory was immediately killed off after WW2 once the market for naval aircraft was realized. Apparently that free market just couldn't tolerate even one more competitor in the ring.

they are state owned companies who closely work with the russian air force and if they dont deliver on their promises they are fucked.
In stalin's times bad aircraft designers were simply shot or sent to gulags, after that their bureaus were just closed.

Tupolev was probably happy when the Tu-2 proved itself to be a good bomber; it was his ticket out of the gulag.

If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?

The Russians have, for the bigger part of 75 years, had a tendency to let their aircraft evolve. (See Yak-1 to -7 to -9 to -3 to -15 to -17; LaGG-3 to La-5 to La-7; La-9 to La-11; MiG-15 to -17). The Ruskies have tended to pursue incrementalism and that strategy has its merits.

Even their newest aircraft tend to have familial ties that stretch back many years--or nowadays, decades.

 

[Tranhuviya]

they are state owned companies who closely work with the russian air force and if they dont deliver on their promises they are fucked.
In stalin's times bad aircraft designers were simply shot or sent to gulags, after that their bureaus were just closed.

What's to stop the federal government from just buying up stocks in Boeing, Lockmart, Mcdonnell-Douglas, et al? We had a 60% stake in General Motors during the bailout. Is there any law against doing so, or is it a conflict of interest thing?

 

[TiggerNits]

The F-35A is actually pretty competent as a first wave aircraft. Minor stealth characteristics, internalized JDAM racks make it a good choice for taking out logistical supports early on, but to be honest that job had already been done incredibly well with the F-117 and there wasn't a good reason to replace it. As a fighter at best it will be on par with the A model F-16s, but as an interceptor it's got a lot of really good features when used in conjunction with other platforms utilizing datalinks, since all it has to be is a platform carrying AMRAAMs for others to aim. For CAS, assuming the enemy has any SAM assets or long range interceptors, it's a much safer choice than the A-10, since that thing is a flying coffin if we ever fight someone with actual air defenses or even MANPADs that are less than 25 years old.

The F35B is the reason the F-35 program is a mess, as someone with (not too much)time in Harriers, I can say STOVL/VTOL is a waste and the US has far too many super carriers and long range fighters to need a jetfighter coming off a helicopter carrier. Sad fact is nothing out there is as an effective CAS platform in uncontested airspace as an attack helicopter.

The C honestly might be okay if all it does is supplant the super hornet as a contested airspace interdiction platform and then become a buddy tanker and JDAM launcher after air dominance is established

As for the A-10, it's a PR machine that makes the Army not want to hate fuck the Air Force as bad. It's loiter time is good, but nowhere near as good as the Predator's. It's precision is no better than an F/A-18s, but it's far more vulnerable when it's in the pipe and transit due to the IR signature coming from nearly dead center on the aircraft due to engine placement and a super low speed for a jet. The airframe is aging poorly and it's become a hangar queen, which is to be expected. The 30mm GAU-10 is a novelty at this point, because it needs to hit the T-72 at nearly exact angles to even penetrate the armor, but the modernized models of the T-72, the T-80 and up are all up-armored enough to just deflect a 30mm gun run without too much issue. So in reality everything the A-10 does is already done much better and cheaper by another platform, be it an Apache, a Super Hornet, a Predator or an AC-130

 

[IwegalBadnik]

What's to stop the federal government from just buying up stocks in Boeing, Lockmart, Mcdonnell-Douglas, et al? We had a 60% stake in General Motors during the bailout. Is there any law against doing so, or is it a conflict of interest thing?

I don't think there's anything besides the kicking and screaming you'd hear accusing the US of "socialism" if it tried to effectively nationalize the aerospace industry.

Part of the problem with the US aerospace industry is that there are only about 3 flavors of ice cream in town: Boeing; Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. (You mentioned McDonnell Douglas; they folded into Boeing in the late 1990s). For the most part, these three tend to go their own ways and only work on the sorts of projects they specialize in:

• If it's an airliner or vaguely shaped like one, Boeing will likely get the nod.
• A fighter or strike plane? LM is probably who will win out.
• Flying wings are for the most part a NG specialty.
• A drone? Everyone is getting into this business and the Big 3 are joined by other players like General Atomics on this.

Competition outside their specialty ties is uncommon for the US aerospace industry. This is what has diminished its competitiveness with itself. Too many companies have too much sway and not enough competition.

 

[Forever Sunrise]

What I don't understand is why you'd want a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup? Wars are won and lost depending on who has air superiority. Wouldn't establishing that as quickly as possible - like the F-22 is designed to do - make more sense than relying on aircraft that can't provide better ground support than the A-10 and can't provide the same level of air superiority as the F-22?

 

[TiggerNits]

What I don't understand is why you'd want a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup? Wars are won and lost depending on who has air superiority. Wouldn't establishing that as quickly as possible - like the F-22 is designed to do - make more sense than relying on aircraft that can't provide better ground support than the A-10 and can't provide the same level of air superiority as the F-22?

Because war has phases and planes are expensive. Hyper-specialized aircraft made sense when the GNP could support a 70,000 aircraft fleet and WW2 wasn't fought in a multi-phase manner. You hit the target with bombs, waited for it to hurt enemy troops with lack of supplies, fuel and reinforcements, then attacked those troops with your troops and moved forward to do it again. Which worked great when the goal of the war was to completely annihilate an enemy's economy and ability to function. But then the Cold War happened

You couldn't fight wars like that anymore because the enemy had a big brother with a nuclear deterrent and mutually assured destruction kinda sucks. So instead of fighting to wipe an enemy off the map and destroy his ability and will to fight, it became about stymieing internal political groups in a region to reach a balance of power that favored you, but not so much that the other side would go home and get his gun. Wars became about controlled destruction, acceptable losses on both sides and reaching a political goal instead of a military one.

Now we're in a political climate where war can't be fought as a war, but as a punitive action where you stop whent he other guy says sorry. And if you hit him too hard, you become the bad guy.

So instead of being able to have specialized aircraft that can turn a nation in to a parking lot in a few days, it's about having them provide different abilities in different phases. So the pre-war phase they show up and look scary, violate enemy airspace and enforce no-fly zones with impunity, Then when the war does start, the first few missions flown are taking out power plants, SAM sites, Radar, Airfields and fuel depots. Then you move to the CAS in contested airspace phase while air dominance is still being created (mostly by F-22s and F-15s) so helicopters and slow movers are vulnerable to any hidden SAMs and MANPADs in the area of operations, so the ability to quickly get in saves lives of ground troops while the ability to get out fast lets the pilot do their job before they can be engaged. After that they move to a CAS phase where air dominance has been provided, so it's more about how long you can stay on station and drop smaller and more precise payloads exactly when they're needed.

You need a plane that can do all of that because otherwise you've got airfields loaded with planes that are now worthless in the current environment but might be needed again (like say if Iran had launched a counter attack in to Iraq to assist them like so many feared in 04) so you can't mothball them because if they do become necessary, it will be in a very serious way in a very aggressive timeframe. You need to have a fleet that can do multiple things so you can keep costs low, planes available for tasking and the ability for them to survive rapid changing tactical environments.

 

[Techpriest]

What I don't understand is why you'd want a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup? Wars are won and lost depending on who has air superiority. Wouldn't establishing that as quickly as possible - like the F-22 is designed to do - make more sense than relying on aircraft that can't provide better ground support than the A-10 and can't provide the same level of air superiority as the F-22?

Cost, redundancy, and mission spread. Let me put it like this: a height of the cold war CAG had the following planes.

• 2 Squadrons of F-4 Phantoms or F-14 Tomcats, 12 planes each.
• 2 Squadrons of attack planes, A-7 Corsairs, 12 planes each
• 10 to 12 A-6E Intruders, along with 4 or so tanker variants (KA-6D's), also for attack
• An early warning detachment of two to four E-2C's
• An electronic warfare detachment of 4 EA-6B Prowlers
• 10 S-3A Vikings for anti-submarine warfare and maritime surveillance
• 6 Sea King helos for ASW
• Some RA-4's or RA-8's, (the recon variants of the Phantom and Crusader respectively) for recon and BDA
• A few EA-3B ELINT aircraft

While the Phantoms could carry bomb loads if needed, that wasn't their primary role, and Tomcats weren't equipped for that and wouldn't have been put out in that role anyway as they were interceptors for taking out the Backfires, Blinders, Blackjacks, and Bears the Soviets would equip with AShM's to spam at a CBG. The Prowlers could do bombing as well, but not a lot of it (Besides their job was to jam sensors and kill SAMs), and the Vikings, Corsairs and Intruders all lacked much if any Air to Air capability (They could carry a pair of sidewinders on the Corsairs which was something, but the aircraft was subsonic). So that's a load of different airframes with different jobs that require their own specialized maintenance crews and spare parts, most of which will be useless for a while.

The Hornet changed a lot - it replaced an entire airframe with another one capable of helping the Tomcats deal with the bombers and provide cover, while also adding loads to strike capability because they were supersonic even when you added a bomb load to them. It allowed the phasing out of the A-7 Corsair and A-6 Intruder over time as it could do both the roles the previous aircraft had while also providing more in the way of flexibility in what they could carry. The A-6 was still a good bombtruck up until its last days of service (And I have to give loads of credit to the designers for making an aircraft that survived through the entire Cold War and was the bomb truck of choice for the Navy from Vietnam to the Gulf) with an excellent range and load unmatched by the Hornet, but once again, the Hornet just offered more.

By the early 2000's, this was the standard US CAG

• 1 Dedicated Fighter Squadron of 12 F-14 A/B/C variant Tomcats, but this was usually being taken up by F/A-18F Super Hornets in a strike fighter squadron instead
• 1 Strike Fighter Squadron of 12 F/A-18C Hornets or F/A-18E Super Hornets
• 2 Strike Fighter Squadrons of 12 F/A-18C Hornets
• AEW squad of 4 E-2C's
• 4 EA-6B Prowlers in an electronic warfare role
• 8 SA-3 Vikings in a tanker and patrol role
• 8 ASW Helos

The Tomcat was retired not soon after this too, with it's role taken up by the Hornet - same with the SA-3's as the Hornet proved to be a great buddy tanker. And a Hornet based platform currently serves as the EA-18 Growler, replacing the Prowler in the EW role. That reduced the cost of each airwing considerably and streamlined maintenance and spare parts allowing more airframes to be capable at any given time of doing whatever role was required of them. Once the Hornets win air superiority, you can kit them out to strike land targets - something you couldn't do with the Tomcat, and you never had enough Tomcats for that anyway. You double the amount of fighters you have without diminishing your strike capability at all.

 

[TiggerNits]

Cost, redundancy, and mission spread. Let me put it like this: a height of the cold war CAG had the following planes.

Hell, now it's literally just Super Hornets 2 squadrons F model, 2-3 squadrons E model, maybe some legacy Hornets IF the Marines are deploying to carriers to help with any shortages. 1 or 2 rotor squadrons for ASW, fleet resupply and SAR, 2 Hawkeyes for AWAC, 1 detachment of Growler hornets. 1 Air Frame is now doing 90% of the workload and it's so much easier for shipboard logistics because it means a lot of parts and maintenance equipment is shared across the board, making it much easier to keep units supplied and properly maintained

 

[IwegalBadnik]

Cost, redundancy, and mission spread. Let me put it like this: a height of the cold war CAG had the following planes.

• 2 Squadrons of F-4 Phantoms or F-14 Tomcats, 12 planes each.
• 2 Squadrons of attack planes, A-7 Corsairs, 12 planes each
• 10 to 12 A-6E Intruders, along with 4 or so tanker variants (KA-6D's), also for attack
• An early warning detachment of two to four E-2C's
• An electronic warfare detachment of 4 EA-6B Prowlers
• 10 S-3A Vikings for anti-submarine warfare and maritime surveillance
• 6 Sea King helos for ASW
• Some RA-4's or RA-8's, (the recon variants of the Phantom and Crusader respectively) for recon and BDA
• A few EA-3B ELINT aircraft

While the Phantoms could carry bomb loads if needed, that wasn't their primary role, and Tomcats weren't equipped for that and wouldn't have been put out in that role anyway as they were interceptors for taking out the Backfires, Blinders, Blackjacks, and Bears the Soviets would equip with AShM's to spam at a CBG. The Prowlers could do bombing as well, but not a lot of it (Besides their job was to jam sensors and kill SAMs), and the Vikings, Corsairs and Intruders all lacked much if any Air to Air capability (They could carry a pair of sidewinders on the Corsairs which was something, but the aircraft was subsonic). So that's a load of different airframes with different jobs that require their own specialized maintenance crews and spare parts, most of which will be useless for a while.

The Hornet changed a lot - it replaced an entire airframe with another one capable of helping the Tomcats deal with the bombers and provide cover, while also adding loads to strike capability because they were supersonic even when you added a bomb load to them. It allowed the phasing out of the A-7 Corsair and A-6 Intruder over time as it could do both the roles the previous aircraft had while also providing more in the way of flexibility in what they could carry. The A-6 was still a good bombtruck up until its last days of service (And I have to give loads of credit to the designers for making an aircraft that survived through the entire Cold War and was the bomb truck of choice for the Navy from Vietnam to the Gulf) with an excellent range and load unmatched by the Hornet, but once again, the Hornet just offered more.

By the early 2000's, this was the standard US CAG

• 1 Dedicated Fighter Squadron of 12 F-14 A/B/C variant Tomcats, but this was usually being taken up by F/A-18F Super Hornets in a strike fighter squadron instead
• 1 Strike Fighter Squadron of 12 F/A-18C Hornets or F/A-18E Super Hornets
• 2 Strike Fighter Squadrons of 12 F/A-18C Hornets
• AEW squad of 4 E-2C's
• 4 EA-6B Prowlers in an electronic warfare role
• 8 SA-3 Vikings in a tanker and patrol role
• 8 ASW Helos

The Tomcat was retired not soon after this too, with it's role taken up by the Hornet - same with the SA-3's as the Hornet proved to be a great buddy tanker. And a Hornet based platform currently serves as the EA-18 Growler, replacing the Prowler in the EW role. That reduced the cost of each airwing considerably and streamlined maintenance and spare parts allowing more airframes to be capable at any given time of doing whatever role was required of them. Once the Hornets win air superiority, you can kit them out to strike land targets - something you couldn't do with the Tomcat, and you never had enough Tomcats for that anyway. You double the amount of fighters you have without diminishing your strike capability at all.

It is a dicey thing to try choosing between slightly better niches in performance and streamlined maintenance and operation. (As you mentioned, the F-18 did succeed the A-6 and F-14, at the cost of being a slight compromise between each in capability.)

The thing with the F-18 and other widely proliferated aircraft (like the F-35) is that with such commonality, a weakness in one design could be as widespread as the aircraft is. That risk is the cost of drawing down the number of types involved.

 

[Tranhuviya]

I would have rather preferred a multirole/light fighter design with stealth features, not necessarily a stealth fighter to supplement the F-22.

 

[Brandobaris]

So realistically, ignoring costs and bribes and production overtime etc etc... How does it actually match up against other foreign fighters? Do we have any Data for that? Because you'd want to hope after all this crap, its going to be bloody amazing.