Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by smarino18 on Feb 19, 2011 - 10:48 PM; edited 1 time in total

As many people know, the f-35 was supposed to be a low-cost 5th gen complement to the f-22. Over the years however, the price of the program has skyrocketed. I was mulling over some potential causes. Did they try to accomplish too much? was corruption more abundant than normal? or is impossible to design and manufacture a low-cost 5th gen fighter at this time? in essence, what the hell happened?

I'm curious as to what other people think.

F-16.net Sponsor

Delays, for whatever reason, cost money.

smarino,

Unfortunately, it was an old-school Military Industrial conceived project from inception (from the mid/late 90's bubble-era mind set) and for that reason... it's not necessarily something what we can actually call today a 'most bang for limited buck' national defense motivated Program - something which in all fairness is usually not really planned for in the first place, but just comes out of plain dumb luck.

Today however, Defense - according to NATO secy gen Anders Fogh Rasmussen at least - is thinking: Build muscle, cut fat. This is a paradigm shift which might take another 2-3 yrs to catch on to. imho.

Unfortunately, the F-35/JSF Program was not originally designed to fit that body type. Sad

Regardless of how one feels about F-35's future technologies or capabilities and part of the future force structure... it is sadly an unsustainable procurement and flawed business model today in the real world - something apparently not yet factored in by policymaking decision makers...

God speed.

Over ambition and unrealistic expectations.

It has to be corruption. As part of my thesis project, I've studied the Atlas program, which was a far larger challenge for industry and science back in the 1950s than the F-35 is today. Atlas managers had to create entirely new industries and fields of research from scratch before a single prototype could be produced, yet the program went from concept to IOC in only 7 years. At its current rate, the F-35 won't be in active units until 2016. That's over 20 years worth of development for a weapon system that uses existing technology off the shelf. There is no excuse for taking that long.

Since when did the F-35 use exisiting off the shelf technology? Maybe at the component level, but for something like the F35 its all about how you integrate it....

Thanks for the replys guys

While some delays and cost overruns are to be expected in any military program, what the f-35 program has led to is IMO crazy. My personal opinion is that they tried to incorporate too much technology too fast. Sure, things like the DAS, HMS, and voice-recognition are great, but they should have been incorporated onto later blocks. This way, they would have had more time available to perfect them, as well as having more time to flight test the actual airframe (last time i checked, one of the big concerns was the abnormally low number of flight hours accrued). Lets also not forget the "software crises".

See this thread:
F-35 - 'BLOCK' my Upgrade/Development

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15092.html
&
'wrightwing' on p.2:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

Both the F-35 and the Raptor have tried to be "too" bleeding edge. Extremely ambitious goals were met in the design phase by pushing the limit of currently available technology. By the time it's fielded, that technology is OLD (ie computers & software), but nonetheless retains the difficulties associated with it's highly ambitious design.

Many militaries suffer from overly ambitious performance requirements, but most of the time they fail because the tech is simply not there. The Raptor & JSF have received enough money to "push" past the multitudes of problems, albeit at great expense to the government. In return, however, great progress has been made in aviation fighter technology. Too bad the freaken bad guys are just copying it all.

The bottom line is, to be a generation ahead of the competition is EXPENSIVE. Being PAR (Eurofighter) or slightly behind (F-16/Su-27) is relatively cheap, but you won't decisively win any wars. With economic prosperity in question, however, the US may not be able to afford 'domination' forever. Without a recent war to convince the people of the need for air platforms, they simply may not be built in the needed quantities to sustain the capabilities of the past.

mave wrote:

Since when did the F-35 use exisiting off the shelf technology? Maybe at the component level, but for something like the F35 its all about how you integrate it....

"No, there was a fully developed aircraft to buy down at the Skunk Works store." OF COURSE I meant at the component level. I'm a technology historian, not an engineer, but I can do research; and while it is reasonable to expect delays in any new weapon system, the F-35's delays and cost overruns are far beyond any precedent in weapons development. Integration is often held up as an excuse, but if the separate components already exist, why should it take 20+ years to make them play nice together.

The F-22 at least has the excuse of poverty due to the fact that it languished through a decade's worth of post-cold war apathy. The F-35 has received the full benefit of the post 9/11 spending boom, and has the added advantage of being the only game in town because the armed services have no effective alternatives should the program fail (F-22 was a possible backup prior to its cancellation).

I'll ask it again. Why does it have to take 20+ years of priority funding to develop a fighter that uses existing technology? I can name at least 6 other publicly funded aerospace programs that have overcome vastly more difficult technological barriers in less than half the time.

Which off the shelf components were used, for the F-35? There's no previous or current fighter, with all of the technologies that the F-35 is integrating.

wrightwing wrote:

Which off the shelf components were used, for the F-35? There's no previous or current fighter, with all of the technologies that the F-35 is integrating.

The entire point of the JSF program was to develop a cost-effective fighter by combining features already developed for other aircraft. Name one single major piece of technology in the F-35 that wasn't available in some form or another 10-15 yeas ago.

Stealth? old

Fly by wire and flight control software? old

Precision weapons capability? old

Off boresight? old

Helmet mounted sight? old

AESA? old

IRST? old

F135 engine? modified F119

It's getting old that I have to keep bringing up the Atlas program for comparison. Its challenges included a lot more than combining capabilities and industries already in existence; it had to build everything virtually from scratch, yet it took only 7 years from concept to IOC. Does Lockheed really expect me to believe that creaky fan door hinges, balky software, or jumpy helmet graphics are adequate justification for taking over twice as long?

name the company that had each of these FIRST ? Do you think they'll give code / proprietary documentation to another company? When you say OLD, we aren't talking many blocks / lots away from where we are now ! Atlas, Put the 1950's dollar figure that went into that !

flyboy22 wrote:

Both the F-35 and the Raptor have tried to be "too" bleeding edge. Extremely ambitious goals were met in the design phase by pushing the limit of currently available technology. By the time it's fielded, that technology is OLD (ie computers & software), but nonetheless retains the difficulties associated with it's highly ambitious design.

That's a heck of a quote really, flyboy. Well said and worth noting, imo.

And smarino - I would pretty much concur with your general assessment, which is one often held in some variation or another.

Perhaps one of the biggest errors also right from the start too, could be in the so-called official 'estimates' and advertised expectations. IMHO, perhaps the most harmful lessons learned from the F-22 Prorgram was in the form of JPO office and decision-makers not exactly/accurately 'esimating', but more or less 'pre-conceiving' the future numbers/costs and dates instead -- necessary to self-justify and fit the pre-conceived success of the F-35 Program. GAO for one has spoken on this general topic of program 'flaws' and has been very critical for years back.

Critics (or as some might wish to be called 'realists') remember, have actually assessed/predicted these huge costs and delays for years now, as being the reality and not something which should be all of a sudden shocked about today.

The below graphic compares estimates made back in early 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 for future costs of FY12's F-35A buys. In 2009 the Estimates bascially gave up and took a year off, to reset and possibly to gain a break in the growing criticism.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

Which off the shelf components were used, for the F-35? There's no previous or current fighter, with all of the technologies that the F-35 is integrating.

The entire point of the JSF program was to develop a cost-effective fighter by combining features already developed for other aircraft. Name one single major piece of technology in the F-35 that wasn't available in some form or another 10-15 yeas ago.

Stealth? old

Fly by wire and flight control software? old

Precision weapons capability? old

Off boresight? old

Helmet mounted sight? old

AESA? old

IRST? old

F135 engine? modified F119

It's getting old that I have to keep bringing up the Atlas program for comparison. Its challenges included a lot more than combining capabilities and industries already in existence; it had to build everything virtually from scratch, yet it took only 7 years from concept to IOC. Does Lockheed really expect me to believe that creaky fan door hinges, balky software, or jumpy helmet graphics are adequate justification for taking over twice as long?

Starting with your 1st example of being *old* naming *stealth* just shows the stupidity of your entire argument. The stealth of the F22/F35 is light years ahead of the *old* stealthy F117. Using your logic we could also add Jets in there as old technology since they are 60 years old when we all know the jets of today make the ones of decades past seem rather antique. What the F35 is doing has never ever been done before, period.

Beazz

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

causes behind the f-35's cost increases?