Tactical Air's Gloomy Future (F-35)

[unhappycamper]

Tactical Air's Gloomy Future
Winslow Wheeler | November 09, 2009

The Defense Authorization bill just signed into law by President Obama pretends a bright future for the Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter. The program is fully funded, and Congress even added separate authority for the alternate GE engine, advice sure to be taken when the definitive DOD Appropriations bill is enacted later this year. Meanwhile, in the real world, the F-35 program continues to fall apart. The latest - but hardly last - shoe to drop is a new internal analysis (breathlessly refuted by Lockheed) that the cost growth stage for this airplane is just beginning.

Lockheed's refutation of the Joint Estimating Team (JET) analysis of cost growth and delays in the F-35 program borders on the hilarious: new computer aided design, simulation, and desk studies (un-validated by empirical testing) make cost growth in truly modern defense technology a thing of the past, they assert. Indeed, just like in DDG-1000, LCS, FCS, VH-71, etc., etc., etc.....

How pathetic.

Even sadder than Lockheed's desperate grasp for reasons to do nothing to fix the self-dismembering F-35 program is the fact that the future of Western combat aviation relies on it. The 2,456 models of it on order for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will ultimately replace almost all tactical aircraft now in our inventory, except for the F-22, for which production beyond 187 aircraft was cancelled this past summer. Major allies, including Britain and much of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel have all made commitments to buy the aircraft. Sales to many others (there's a long list) are postulated, and those who do not intend to buy the F-35 will probably copy it to the extent their treasuries, government bureaucracies, and technological development permit.

Unfortunately, the F-35 is unaffordable, and it is a technological kluge that will be less effective than airplanes it replaces. It will undo our air forces and our allies', not help them.


Rest of article about this $239 million dollar wonder at: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,205499,00.html?wh=news



unhappycamper comment: BTW, the $355 million F-22 Raptor doesn't work well in water.

[old mark]

1. There is little wrong with the A10 as a ground support aircraft - it's old, but so is

the Buff, and still great at what it does. Upgrades to existing planes, not a new mix master all purpose aircraft would be a better choice, especially considering the sad history of previous "all purpose" aircraft that do many jobs, none of them very well.

mark

[dschis]

11. As an old soldier, that's another airplane I really love

[leveymg]

2. Interesting Airpower Australia studies compare F-22, F-35, F-16, F-15, SU-31, Eurofighter

Finds the F-35 to barely more capable than present gen USAF inventory for most strike packages and less capable than upgraded F-15 and SU-27/30.

See, Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?Reports suggest that the F-22 was proposed to the UK, a historical fact which would .... effort of the Eurofighter consortium both in Europe and Australia, ... from a mid nineties DERA simulation against a postulated Su-35 threat. .... its optimal operating radius is not in the class of the F-15 and Su-27/30. ...
http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html

See the drop-down links below the masthead for the links to F-22 and F-35. They love the former and loath the latter Down Under.

[unhappycamper]

3. Thanks!

I see Airpower Australia has nothing about the cost nor the non-waterproof feature.

[leveymg]

4. There's lots about costs. As for waterproof, the F-117 isn't exactly all-weather, either.

Even the composite tail assembly on Airbuses are prone to degradation by water penetration. Seems to be common problem for "paper mache airplanes".

[unhappycamper]

5. Interestingly enough, I got the $355 million / $239 million numbers from the military rags.

I read the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times, Stars & Stripes and military.com daily. For some reason, the articles I posted from the aforementioned web sites with the costs I am citing are no longer in the archives.

[leveymg]

6. Google cache should have it. If you have a date of publication, try Wayback Machine.

[dschis]

10. I've always loved the F15 capabilies

It always seems no matter how hard they try they can never really beat it.

[excess_3]

7. F35-B, short take off, vertical landing .nt

[FarCenter]

15. Probably not -- the weight of STOL detracts too much from other performance parameters

The short takeoff and landing version is unlikely to be sucessful. Another boondoggle attempt to replace the Harrier so the Marines and British Navy have something for their pilots to enjoy.

[ddeclue]

8. Cost problems are a function of the limited production run size.

The smaller the number of planes produced the higher the per unit cost. Imagine if Detroit only produced 187 cadillac escalades a year. They'd be selling for over a million dollars a copy.

Fixed costs have to be amortized across the number of units produced regardless of how small they are. The F22 would have been a lot cheaper on a per unit basis if the original intended number (750) were produced. Same is true for F35. Eurofighter will likewise turn out to be very expensive on a per unit basis.

The main reasons that the previous generations of F4, F14, F15, F16, and F18 fighters were so much cheaper are:

a) Produced in vastly larger numbers - thousands of airplanes not 200.

b) Designed and produced 20 to 50 years ago for the vast majority of them so that inflation has made them seem much cheaper than they actually are if adjusted for inflation.

c) Technology and capability are generally much better now than then but the technology DOES cost money. F22 can fly rings around F14, F15, F16, and F18 because of vectored thrust, computer technology, and supercruise engine design - in turn F14, F15, F16, and F18 can fly rings around F4.

We can say that we don't need these planes but one day we will be facing off against an advanced nation with enough money to buy and fly Eurofighter or an advanced Russian aircraft and we'll be facing them with 1960's and 1970's technology F15's and F16'S AND F18'S - we'll lose because we want to be cheap about it now.

A lot of the F16's and F15's have really reached the end of their structural lives and need to be replaced - A Missouri Air National Guard F15C came apart in the air a few years back due to structural failure resulting from an airframe that had reached fatigue lifetime end of life - fortunately the pilot survived the ejection.

If we are going to replace these EOL aircraft, we ought to do it right with a new design that incorporates the most modern technology. I really believe there should be a lot more F22's than the current proposed number and perhaps the F35 ought be held off on for the time being in favor of the more conventional F18E/F superhornet for USN and USMC.

Doug D.
Aerospace Engineer,
Orlando, FL

[dschis]

12. Upgrade the old ones, replace as needed and prototype new

Especially the A10 and F15 maybe the F18 and Harrier. We can't afford it right now. The wars we're in need the close air support. Tactics, tactics, tactics. In the World War 2, the Germans had the technological edge in almost every way, but they still lost. Advanced toys always have weaknesses (look at the Afghans) that can be exploited by a determined enemy.

[Selatius]

13. The problem is, nobody can really fight a World War 2 style war anymore except...

a small few countries with large enough manufacturing capacity to pull it off. In World War 2, the Soviet Union and the US were the biggest manufacturing giants of that war.

There were literally thousands of B-17s produced just to fight in the European theater alone, with thousands of them lost in the skies as well due to enemy fire. The same was true for the P-51. Thousands of those came off the assembly lines to fight the war. The per unit cost of these aircraft is stupendously low compared to modern aircraft due to the sheer number of them produced, and they were state-of-the-art for their time.

Because so few modern aircraft are produced given the technological capabilities of the airframes, it'll be hard to address the per unit cost problem. I mean, it doesn't take 50,000 aircraft to bring down an enemy's war machine anymore. One F-15 could take on five opposing planes with the right skilled pilot and the technology on board, and often, the enemy's air force, at least the ones we've come up against in the last 40 years, has often numbered less than 1,000 aircraft total, and many of them weren't even designed for dog-fighting.

It would make sense to lower the costs through sheer production if we were facing off against an enemy with a huge manufacturing capacity who is prepared to fight a conventional war lasting several years, more than enough time to retool their industrial centers to push out war machines in large numbers, and maybe two countries in the world outside the US possess the latent industrial capacity to do so. However, with the invention of nuclear weapons, the likelihood of war between huge powers is diminished greatly if we assume the players are rational actors with a sense of self-preservation in mind.

[dschis]

14. But at what cost?

It becomes a self perpetuating prophecy. Unless of coarse technology makes a huge leap forward hence my position in repair, replace, and keep the research going

[dschis]

9. I have mixed feeling about that

while I understand as retired military the strategic and tactical importance of maintaining air superiority. It seems there must be a more cost effective way to put new airplanes up or at least have working prototypes to put on line in a hurry.

I've said this before:
1. Since America has adopted a policy of maintaining a large complex military machine we have either lost or fought to a draw most of our major military actions.

2. We have lost a LOT of our standing in the world as a force for good.

3. We (myself included) as men have a tendency to want to use our new "toys" when we can. Unfortunately that gets us into more military actions. That's where the real money comes in. The logistics of putting "boots on the ground" and supporting the combined air,land, sea doctrine is really takes a lot of resources and it's telling on us.

4. The Soviets tried force projection and military investment on a more massive scale, compared to percentage of economic capability, than we have and self destructed. Even we can't last.

5. IMHO a lot of brain power, resources and industrial capability that is currently used in the military industrial complex would serve us better. A film from 1972, I'm telling my age, Future Shock http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-uHD2YeVhA is our destiny unless we solve it. It will be settling other worlds.


Just saying

[FarCenter]

16. Manned fighter aircraft are essentially obsolete anyway

Long before there is any major combat where they are needed, unmanned aircraft and intelligent missiles will rule the skies.

The main tasks for a major adversary are to defeat AWACS, tanker aircraft, military transports, and aircraft carriers.

[leveymg]

18. There's a half-hearted quality to the debate that reflects that underlying reality

It's idiodic to sink $100 billion into a next generation tactical ground attack aircraft that's a real compromise in other missions when drones seem perfectly capable of carrying out so much of the ground attack mode. Even in air-superiority, manned aircraft appear to be inevitably doomed in the face of vastly cheaper and more manuverable high-performance drones. The upper-limit on manned flight is G-forces.

If I had to predict the future, I'd say by 2040, 80 percent of all tactical combat aircraft will be drones. The primary role of pilots in the future will be as close-support aerial command and control for drone squadrons.

[tammywammy]

17. The F-22 is headed to the Dubai Air Show n/t