F-35 Program Cutting Corners to “Complete” Development

[DooKey]

The Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has obtained a document that shows how problems with the F-35 are being recategorized instead of being fixed. They say this is because the program office needs to show that development of the F-35 is over so they won't have to pay overrun costs for the fixes. Some of these defects are critical according to POGO and could result in loss of life or reduce combat effectiveness. The DoD and Lockheed Martin haven't responded to POGO regarding their investigation. Further, I know this is just the opinion of one source, but if even a small part of this is accurate then things are going much worse for the F-35 program than I previously believed. Congress needs to do some oversight and get to the bottom of all of this. Right, like that will happen since all of them have a piece of the pie in their state. I highly recommend that you read the source article.

...the large number of deficiencies reported proves that many people have been conscientiously working toward improving the final engineering design to ensure it is safe and effective. With the revelation that officials made paperwork fixes to make these serious deficiencies appear acceptable, it seems that much of that work is being ignored in the name of political expediency and protecting F-35 funding.

 

[Riccochet]

Why are these things not treated like other aspects of military equipment acquisition? As in a vendor spends their own money developing a new product that is then presented to the military for trial and approval. Let Lockheed spend their own money on it.

 

[PenGunn]

Its an ugly plane and flies like a duck.

 

[That_Sound_Guy]

Should have just built a boatload of high tech missiles to act as our planes. Air to air combat is an ancient relic of battle and we have way better spy/ground support options already deployed. What a waste of theoretical money.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Should have just built a boatload of high tech missiles to act as our planes. Air to air combat is an ancient relic of battle and we have way better spy/ground support options already deployed. What a waste of theoretical money.

Which is true till you have to have to
fly without communications in bad weather,
fly in combat without communications
land on a makeshift desert field or
take out a high profile target with a school beside it.

 

[jardows]

History lesson from the last time we actually had major air warfare - Our enemy had technically superior fighters with better trained and more experienced pilots. We achieved air supremacy by being able to manufacture massively greater quantities of planes that were "good enough." Not that I advocate lower "quality" fighters, but with the costs of these, I wonder how well they'd do if they were outnumbered 10-1 by fighters that cost 1/10th the cost?

 

[Armenius]

History lesson from the last time we actually had major air warfare - Our enemy had technically superior fighters with better trained and more experienced pilots. We achieved air supremacy by being able to manufacture massively greater quantities of planes that were "good enough." Not that I advocate lower "quality" fighters, but with the costs of these, I wonder how well they'd do if they were outnumbered 10-1 by fighters that cost 1/10th the cost?

That must be why the Russians built the MiG-29 specifically to counter the F-15, right? And the latter was still superior.

 

[PaulP]

The thing is, having been involved in very large projects, I can tell you that anybody that hasn't been down in the trenches for a long time - years - isn't qualified to determine what's a real defect and what's just a result of specmanship. So color me skeptical when these outsiders from POGO claim they can. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, as I'm an outsider too, but their statements don't carry much credibility to me.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

That must be why the Russians built the MiG-29 specifically to counter the F-15, right? And the latter was still superior.

Unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way. It's a minimal odds of viability in a battle situation compared to your adversary which is one of the reasons they want to scrap the A-10. (I don't agree with that decision but it's not my field of expertise)

During vietnam, Huey's while a general workhorse of the army, were prone to being shot down. They were cheap, but replacing lost experienced men is not.

 

[lcpiper]

Should have just built a boatload of high tech missiles to act as our planes. Air to air combat is an ancient relic of battle and we have way better spy/ground support options already deployed. What a waste of theoretical money.

F-35 is a multi-role fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It means it can do a lot more than just perform air to air combat. And air to air combat is not an ancient relic of battle.

Missiles are still currently the most common form of air to air or surface to air weapon system. But missiles require a launch platform which can be ground based, navel, or in this case an air platform. Although ground forces can bring along their own anti-air weapons systems, and do, and navel forces have their own anti-air systems on board, they also use carrier based aircraft to extend the defensive range, provide defense over unprotected assets, and to escort strike aircraft on attack missions. They also provide additional defensive coverage over ground forces in the attack or defense.

But hey, if you don't think we need them any more I'll go ahead and send a letter to the Donald and we'll stop that foolishness.

 

[etudiant]

The military equipment contracts are mostly cost plus, because the product usually has so many changes during the production cycle that 'fixed price' is unworkable, just an invitation to gouging the customer on the change requests.
Hence the government mandates very intrusive expense tracking, which massively inflates the overhead expenses of the work. Musk was able to underprice the established contractors for space launch by more than half because as a private builder, he could sidestep those costs.
However, his success reflects very clear requirements, low cost and reusable launch.
The F-35 requirements fill volumes and in peacetime it is hard to tell which ones don't really matter. The program consequently takes decades to reach maturity, with the F-35 stemming back to the mid 1990s. Perhaps that also reflects the speed which large institutions can implement change.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

The military equipment contracts are mostly cost plus, because the product usually has so many changes during the production cycle that 'fixed price' is unworkable, just an invitation to gouging the customer on the change requests.

I will agree with you, but as someone on here who got pissed off at me said, "Waterfall is the only viable approach acceptable" That means everything should be spec'd out ahead of time. But it never works out that way does it? Hence why the Bradly fighting vehicle is a rolling pile of shit.

The simple of the matter of truth is when you are developing next-gen stuff, very very rarely is it off the shelf. There's a lot of R&D and testing and timelines on those are "grey" But incremental progress should be shown to show at an early stage where sub programs are falling off the mark. Small goals & milestones should be outlines on a regular basis. But that goes against waterfall's approach of independent tracks coming together in a massive speed increase towards the end of the project.

Waterfalls also have the worst on average delivery target date acceptance. (In other words they just about ALWAYS run over)

 

[Dayaks]

Why are these things not treated like other aspects of military equipment acquisition? As in a vendor spends their own money developing a new product that is then presented to the military for trial and approval. Let Lockheed spend their own money on it.

A lot of advancements are actually funded by the military. They have a large budget to give out to companies for R&D projects with vague (low risk) deliverables. It gives a chance for an innovative small company to leapfrog large ones. The end point is companies do some R&D themselves but a lot of funded by the military.

 

[lcpiper]

History lesson from the last time we actually had major air warfare - Our enemy had technically superior fighters with better trained and more experienced pilots. We achieved air supremacy by being able to manufacture massively greater quantities of planes that were "good enough." Not that I advocate lower "quality" fighters, but with the costs of these, I wonder how well they'd do if they were outnumbered 10-1 by fighters that cost 1/10th the cost?

Which history lesson are you referring too?

The history lesson that is relevant is the fact that we haven't had any major air to air conflicts of scope since the mid 70's.

Knowing that you will lose is a strong deterrent.

 

[SecretStash]

History lesson from the last time we actually had major air warfare - Our enemy had technically superior fighters with better trained and more experienced pilots. We achieved air supremacy by being able to manufacture massively greater quantities of planes that were "good enough." Not that I advocate lower "quality" fighters, but with the costs of these, I wonder how well they'd do if they were outnumbered 10-1 by fighters that cost 1/10th the cost?

Was this before p 51s ruled the sky?

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Which history lesson are you referring too?

The history lesson that is relevant is the fact that we haven't had any major air to air conflicts of scope since the mid 70's.

Knowing that you will lose is a strong deterrent.

During the Korean war, we have Corsairs going up against MiG jets.

And until the lightnings and corsairs showed up, one could argue the Zero was superior despite light armor and weapons.

 

[DooKey]

During the Korean war, we have Corsairs going up against MiG jets.

And until the lightnings and corsairs showed up, one could argue the Zero was superior despite light armor and weapons.

I'd add the Hellcat to that group as well.

 

[Mega6]

During the Korean war, we have Corsairs going up against MiG jets.

And until the lightnings and corsairs showed up, one could argue the Zero was superior despite light armor and weapons.

F6F Hellcat was the death of the zero
13:1 kill ratio against the A6M Zero, Wikipedia claimed..ratio

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'd add the Hellcat to that group as well.

F6F Hellcat was the death of the zero
13:1 kill ratio against the A6M Zero,

You are both quite correct. How could I forget that great plane!?

 

[Wolf-R1]

This is why China will eventually overtake us. We have zero sense of national pride. I'm not talking the redneck, chest thumping "Murica" kind of pride. I'm talking about the kind of pride that drives us to do good work for the sake of showing what we're capable of and for the sake of simply doing a damn good job of something. But I suppose that sentiment died with WW2.

 

[Uvaman2]

Corruption in the military industrial complex !!!? I have fainted 12 times in my couch.

 

[Mega6]

Don't panic on these reports. The Israelis have already flown the f-35 into Syria under the nose of the best Russia has, the sa-4.

Edit - Dumb me meant s-400

 

[Uvaman2]

This is why China will eventually overtake us. We have zero sense of national pride. I'm not talking the redneck, chest thumping "Murica" kind of pride. I'm talking about the kind of pride that drives us to do good work for the sake of showing what we're capable of and for the sake of simply doing a damn good job of something. But I suppose that sentiment died with WW2.

That sounds about right.. we have made corruption ever so insidious in key and mayor aspects of our economy its really sad. Its so insidious its just legalized or practically legalized... But 'murica!! Let's just not so much as see that

 

[Oldmodder]

Of course its the program we Danes have been buying into, and with our track record with just any form of government spending of course we have to go there.

I always had a soft spot for the P-38 and the P-51, bout a strong outsider maybe not in performance i always had the P-39 though only the Russians had any luck with those.

 

[That_Sound_Guy]

Which is true till you have to have to
fly without communications in bad weather,
fly in combat without communications
land on a makeshift desert field or
take out a high profile target with a school beside it.

We have aircraft that can do all you mentioned and more already. Just not in one super expensive all in on bundle.

F-35 is a multi-role fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It means it can do a lot more than just perform air to air combat. And air to air combat is not an ancient relic of battle.

Obviously the 35 is not just air to air, but its other features in general already exist in other aircraft. Air to air is the least likely fighting scenario is todays military. With the distance of radar and missile travel today, there's no need to send planes in to take down other planes. Drones will handle that.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

F-35 is a multi-role fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It means it can do a lot more than just perform air to air combat.

The F-22 is as well, as is the F-15E and F16D and F/A-18...E?

Main point on the F-35 is that it is a flying networked sensor. On top of being multi-role, the battlespace visibility that it brings to the fight is an exponential force multiplier, and that's one of the reasons for the big push to get them in allies' hands.
This technology and its international integration is a significantly larger deterrent than say single super-maneuverable F-22's, SU27+, and Chinese equivalents.

 

[lcpiper]

Hence why the Bradly fighting vehicle is a rolling pile of shit............................

I don't agree with this at all.

It's no good for city fighting, but neither is any other armored vehicle which is why no one in their right mind deploys armor into urban environments where real opposition is expected. Cities are death traps for armored vehicles.

The Bradley was designed to be a battlefield taxi for infantry and to provide a supporting gun platform and it can do these things effectively. They were never designed to be used offensively against tanks, only defensively, shoot and run relocating to new positions to wait for another chance to kill and run away again. They were products of combined arms doctrine in which the enemy is systematically destroyed in a very deadly game or rock, paper, scissors.

Want to say more, 'll spare you, work calls.

 

[lcpiper]

You are both quite correct. How could I forget that great plane!?

Air combat tactics are deserve a lot of credit as well. Tactics that took advantage of our aircraft's strengths and negated the enemy aircraft's advantages.

Vietnam is a much more recent example where US Ari Forces suffered from better equipped Russian aircraft. One could argue that it was this conflict that saw a decided shift in US Aircraft design policy toward technical superiority over numbers.

Trivia for the day, the combat aircraft that most closely resembles to performance capabilities of the F-16 Falcon is ....... the ME-262 which has never been reproduced until most recently.

 

[dj_spanmaster]

It's not a bug, it's a feature

 

[Flogger23m]

That must be why the Russians built the MiG-29 specifically to counter the F-15, right? And the latter was still superior.

Eh, you're thinking of the MIG-25. The F-15 was built in response to it, but the MIG-25 turned out to be an unimpressive one trick pony (very high speed interceptor). MIG-29 is a light fighter like a Mirage 2000 or F-16.

 

[Oldmodder]

When it come to jets i really like some of the Russian ones, its like US jets looks are like " sure it can fly cuz we have the compute power for it to do that" where as the Russian planes just look like they can fly.

 

[HockeyJon]

I mean, they’re over a trillion dollars in at this point. Was budget ever a consideration along the way?

 

[gamerk2]

History lesson from the last time we actually had major air warfare - Our enemy had technically superior fighters with better trained and more experienced pilots. We achieved air supremacy by being able to manufacture massively greater quantities of planes that were "good enough." Not that I advocate lower "quality" fighters, but with the costs of these, I wonder how well they'd do if they were outnumbered 10-1 by fighters that cost 1/10th the cost?

Do keep in mind, during WWII the Air Force thought it didn't NEED a dedicated air superiority fighter; they thought formations of heavily armed bombers (B17/B29) would be sufficient to protect themselves. That's why the Air Force didn't have anything until 1944 that could escort bomber wings all the way into Germany and back.

The Army coincidentally made the same exact mistake with tanks; Tanks were to support the infantry, Tank Destroyers (such as the M10) were supposed to deal with opposing tanks. This is why the M4 Sherman was so badly outgunned throughout the war, and why the forever stalled M29 Pershing needed to get rushed to Europe at the end of 1944, as the Sherman really didn't do well against Panthers, let alone Tigers.

Simply put, the US's assumptions going into WWII were wrong.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

History lesson from the last time we actually had major air warfare - Our enemy had technically superior fighters with better trained and more experienced pilots. We achieved air supremacy by being able to manufacture massively greater quantities of planes that were "good enough." Not that I advocate lower "quality" fighters, but with the costs of these, I wonder how well they'd do if they were outnumbered 10-1 by fighters that cost 1/10th the cost?

This assumes you have pilots for all the fighters you can buy...

Last I read about it the Air Force had a HUGE shortage of pilots. Last report I can find suggests they are short 1,211 pilots.

I'm guessing in a reality where recruiting of fighter pilots is difficult, you are going to have to make the absolute most of every one of them by putting them in the most capable aircraft you can build.

That said, the F35 is projected to cost $85M per unit in 2019 (not including the cost of all the government contracts during development).

That is more expensive than many others, but if you are going to do the 1:10 comparison you did, you'd have to find fighter jets for $8.5M, which I'm not sure how many of them there are.

Saab's Jas39 Gripen, another multirole fighter praised for its low cost and high effectivity starts at $30M, so you are looking at more like 2-3 to 1, rather than 10 to 1.

 

[jcollett69]

This plane was in Battlefield 3. Its nickname was the Flying Coffin. Hoping that moniker does not apply in real life.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I don't agree with this at all.

It's no good for city fighting, but neither is any other armored vehicle which is why no one in their right mind deploys armor into urban environments where real opposition is expected. Cities are death traps for armored vehicles.

The Bradley was designed to be a battlefield taxi for infantry and to provide a supporting gun platform and it can do these things effectively. They were never designed to be used offensively against tanks, only defensively, shoot and run relocating to new positions to wait for another chance to kill and run away again. They were products of combined arms doctrine in which the enemy is systematically destroyed in a very deadly game or rock, paper, scissors.

Want to say more, 'll spare you, work calls.

Movie was based around true facts. The Bradley was redesigned with new design objectives mutiple times. To add a gun it needed a bigger motor. The gun also took considerable space and reduced the available men it could transport. To compensate, they used lighter armor which is some of the weakest there is in terms of a transport. Also the damn thing kept sinking and it was supposed to be able for cross water beds. It's fuel tanks (one of the weak points and also weakly armored) sit exposed on the outside in clear site uptop. And it went way over budget for money AND time. Even with extensive modifications it still sucked. There was a congressional investigation as to why field test reports were being doctored for acceptability. Sound familiar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

The Bradley is a POS. I researched it after I saw the movie.

 

[mkrohn]

This is why China will eventually overtake us. We have zero sense of national pride. I'm not talking the redneck, chest thumping "Murica" kind of pride. I'm talking about the kind of pride that drives us to do good work for the sake of showing what we're capable of and for the sake of simply doing a damn good job of something. But I suppose that sentiment died with WW2.

For it to come back we have to actually start doing something right. Education? Health care? merica is worse than some third world countries in far too many things. Only thing we properly top the charts in is locking people up and other terrible things you don't want to top.

 

[lcpiper]

I mean, they’re over a trillion dollars in at this point. Was budget ever a consideration along the way?

I started looking at that document and maybe some of the concerns are overly hyped. For instance, look at the last line item on page 3, it's highlighted yellow. If you notice, there are several columns and one is for which variants of the aircraft this line item is pertaining to. In this case, it's only the CV variant. I don't know which variant the CV represents, but it doesn't say "All" as in all variants. I think I'd have to dig into it further before I got all upset.

This page describes variant naming for the F35, looks like there are commonalities with the Lightning II.
https://www.f35.com/about/variants

The F-35 family includes three variants – all single-seat jets: the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant, the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant, and the F-35C carrier variant (CV).

So the line item I referenced would apply only to the Carrier Based version of the aircraft.

At the very bottom of the page there is a description of the Status Codes which help define in what status this fault falls. As an example, again, the one I pointed out has a Status of ONPC meaning "Open, No Planned Correction".


Actually the more I look at this document the more it reminds me of the crap I have to do STIGing systems.

So I am reading up on the article's accusations about the arrsting hook for the CTOL version. Then I am thinking, why does a the standard Air Force variant need an arresting hook? I found my answer here;
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-an-f-35-landing-on-a-wintery-runway-will-l-1643403254

The F-35C's much more robust landing gear and carrier operations rated tail hook would allow the jet to use an arresting cable for short field operations regularly

So in short, unless you are operating the air craft from short runways you don't need it at all and it won't be used. That's not saying that it shouldn't be fixed, but I can understand why I wouldn't hold up the entire program for that reason. Also, the Status Code for this item remains "Under Investigation" so it is far from closed.

I think this is more smoke than fire. Of course companies make money from this work. Yes the DoD is bad about wasting money and this aircraft program won't be any different. But from what I can tell, this document isn't anything to pull out the pitch forks over.

 

[lcpiper]

Movie was based around true facts. The Bradley was redesigned with new design objectives mutiple times. To add a gun it needed a bigger motor. The gun also took considerable space and reduced the available men it could transport. To compensate, they used lighter armor which is some of the weakest there is in terms of a transport. Also the damn thing kept sinking and it was supposed to be able for cross water beds. It's fuel tanks (one of the weak points and also weakly armored) sit exposed on the outside in clear site uptop. And it went way over budget for money AND time. Even with extensive modifications it still sucked. There was a congressional investigation as to why field test reports were being doctored for acceptability. Sound familiar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

The Bradley is a POS. I researched it after I saw the movie.

I fought along side them.

I also experienced their predecessor, the M113, hands down the Bradley is an improvement.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Don't panic on these reports. The Israelis have already flown the f-35 into Syria under the nose of the best Russia has, the sa-4.

Edit - Dumb me meant s-400

There are just four S-400 systems in Syria: Two at Khmeimim air base in Latakia province, and two at Tartus naval port along the Mediterranean Sea - neither of them close to Israel. I don't think Israel has flown near any of their defensive perimeters.

And when the US launched a missile strike on Syria in April of this year, after dubious allegations of a chemical attack, the US avoided firing any missiles within range of Russia's S-400 systems.

Israel has been panicked over the idea of Russia selling S-300 systems to Syria:

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-...0-systems-to-Syria-major-threat-to-IAF-549837
https://www.newsweek.com/israel-fears-new-russian-weapons-can-reignite-syria-tinderbox-892530

Currently, Syria possesses only S-200 and some other older systems, though with some newer modifications to them. And it was reported last year that one of those S-200 systems shot down an Israeli F-35: https://southfront.org/israel-hiding-state-art-f-35-warplane-hit-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/

The US has been threatening Turkey, which is a part of the F-35 program, from buying S-400 systems, and warned that Turkey might not be able to get any F-35 if they get the S-400. But Turkey has rebuffed the US:

https://www.rt.com/news/437333-turkey-will-buy-s400-f35/

The US is also threatening India against getting S-400 system, and India is also rebuffing the US:

https://www.rt.com/news/437261-us-warns-india-russian-arms/

There is a similar thing happening with Saudi Arabia, which had agreed to purchase S-400 systems last year before being advised not to by the US. But SA appears to also be resisting the US' pressure:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...0-air-defense-system-arabiya-tv-idUSKBN1CA1OD
https://www.rt.com/newsline/437155-saudi-security-weapons-russia/