Inaccurate gun, cybersecurity issues, and poor reliability found by testing director.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Not a straight shooter: DOD review cites fleet of faults in F-35 program
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I don't understand why we keep taking delivery of more and more when it doesn't meet design and use standards? Shouldn't they have halted production a long time ago, fixed the design issues, then restarted production?
Upvote
16
(24
/
-8)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
In reality, "low and slow" is the worst approach vector now. A-10s are more vulnerable to small-unit air defense systems. The F-35's targeting system array isn't just clearer, it's a lot smarter, and can do tricks like automatically ID'ing ground vehicles.
In the same environments that an F-16 or A-10 can fly in? Who cares if it loses a bit of stealth? It'll still be a lot harder to detect than a non-stealth, and carry more weapons than an A-10 can in the bargain. Up to 24 SDBs at once.
It also won't need fuel tanks, it has an A2G combat radius of 650nmi on internal fuel alone, vs the F-16's 400 with tanks and an A-10's 250.
Upvote
27
(35
/
-8)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Because, from the services' side, it is meeting the standards. These are small, previously unidentified issues that don't negatively affect its ability to complete the mission that will be corrected.
Upvote
7
(17
/
-10)
What is wrong with the US military? Do they really expect an aircraft that only cost 85 to 100 million per to actually do what it was (supposedly) designed to do? //s
Upvote
-2
(11
/
-13)
With the benefit of hindsight, maybe? However, the argument against shutting down production is that it's fiendishly expensive to shut down production and then re-start it. All the production staff have to be laid off and most of them won't be coming back. There's a huge brain drain of highly knowledgeable people which takes years to replace once production is re-started. You have to re-hire and re-train an entire skilled labor force, the factory buildings still need to be paid for in the meantime, and so on.
You can't re-start production at full rate (due to the people issue), so once production starts again it would take additional years to get up to full production. This also delays training of the actual pilots and the military learning the plane's true capabilities and learning how to effectively wage war with it. Add it all up and you could be looking at a decade-long delay in operational effectiveness.
So the argument for continuing with production boils down to it'll be cheaper and faster to retrofit fixes to the plane. Whether that's actually true depends a lot on the specifics...
Upvote
42
(43
/
-1)
Only a guess, but Lockheed probably gets bonus money for on-time delivery (or penalties if they are late). There's no time to do it right, but there's plenty of time to do it over.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
CAS does not mean low and slow flying. The doctrine has changed radically.
Upvote
15
(17
/
-2)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
This isn't a toaster or your smartphone, is an extremely complex package of thousands of different systems packed together into the flying equivalent of an F1 racecar. Which is true for older planes as well.
The F-14 had engines that could flame-out and put it into an unrecoverable flat spin.
The F-15's engines had critical issues that caused it to randomly stall or have stagnant response times.
The F-16's Fly-By-Wire and engines were so unreliable it earned the nickname "Lawn Dart" in the 80s.
The F-35 so far has had a lot of minor issues that don't seriously affect its ability to perform significantly better than its predecessors.
Upvote
31
(43
/
-12)
Well, the other bidder on the JSF was Boeing, so I suspect we're SOL on capable contractors at this point.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
They just strap Jesse Ventura to the bottom of the plane, so it really depends on what he's wearing at the time
He ain't got time to bleed.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
Too bad that Israel had no idea about this. And their F-35 fly regular missions in Syria, shaming those "top-notch, impenetrable Russian AAs" in process.
Upvote
26
(32
/
-6)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
L-M's actually been on a hard price ceiling for the F-35 since the program rebuild in 2009, and have to eat any costs over the target price. LRIP 4 was delivered at-target, and every batch since has been delivered under its target price.
Upvote
42
(42
/
0)
Scipio Africanus
Ars Centurion
From a project goal perspective, this thing is already a huge failure.
This is supposed to be the "cheap" multi-role fighter. That is, this is supposed to be the analogue to the F-16.
In the 70s, the F-15 was the expensive high performance air superiority fighter. That's the F-22 today. So they started the Lightweight Fighter program. There were 2 entrants, the Air Force picked the F-16 but the loser became the Navy's F-18. Both have been rousing successes. The F-16 is still the most numerous multi-role fighter in the world and the F-18 has been no slouch either.
So here we are today, with a 1.5 trillion dollar program cost already for a plane that's supposed to be the cheap one. I'd call that a project goal failure.
This is supposed to be the "cheap" multi-role fighter. That is, this is supposed to be the analogue to the F-16.
In the 70s, the F-15 was the expensive high performance air superiority fighter. That's the F-22 today. So they started the Lightweight Fighter program. There were 2 entrants, the Air Force picked the F-16 but the loser became the Navy's F-18. Both have been rousing successes. The F-16 is still the most numerous multi-role fighter in the world and the F-18 has been no slouch either.
So here we are today, with a 1.5 trillion dollar program cost already for a plane that's supposed to be the cheap one. I'd call that a project goal failure.
Upvote
-6
(16
/
-22)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Modern F-16E/F Block 60s are actually $10m+ more than an F-35A, and for demo of what new F-15s cost, the F-15K's as-delivered price was $118m each.
Compared to other western fighters, like the EF-2000 ($103m ea) or Rafale ($108m) is a bargain.
Upvote
14
(25
/
-11)
Certainly not this point. You seriously think that because it has some cybersecurity and software issues and a basically vestigal gun mount occasionally cracks we need to scrap the whole plane and start fresh? What the fuck are you even talking about?
There's nothing wrong with this plane that upgrades can't fix, and the reason so much is wrong with it and it's so expensive is that it represents a level of complexity and capability no other plane on Earth has even attempted to deliver save the F-22 which is a decade and a half behind it.
For some reason, a lot of pundits and commentators have made it their mission in life to make histrionic, catastrophic claims about the unmitigated (sic) failure of major procurement programs, and holy crap has it become an irritant.
Upvote
14
(29
/
-15)
I call bullshit on that.
They did the stupid thing on the F-4 Phantom by not including a gun, and a lot of guys were shot down by guns in close combat. The theory that the F-35 can see all threats coming and engage at a distance is just that - a theory. When, not if, a threat materializes at close range, missiles aren't going to cut it. The simple fact is that if you can't engage at range without getting shot down, engage closer. This won't be the only aircraft in the future with stealth, and stealth won't last very long as a viable technology except against third world insurgents using outdated Soviet equipment.
So, I'm rather glad it has a gun.
I'd rather it not be put in combat situations, and leave those to the aircraft that have proven themselves combat worthy.
I love how they talk about the F-35's "55 year lifetime"
The F-14 lasted 22 years (1969-1991).
The F-4 Phantom (1958-1981)
The F-16 45 years (1974-2017, then brought back in 2019 because, reasons)
No fighter aircraft in the last 60 years has lasted longer than the F-15 Eagle - from 1972 to present, which is still a far cry from 55 years, and that's only because it's been upgraded a LOT over the years.
I don't recall it having the production headaches that the F-35 has had. In fact, it only took 5 years from proposal to first flight (1967 first proposal 1972 first flight, entered service in 1976).
That's 9 years.
The F-35 has been in the process of getting its act together since 1992.
That's 28 YEARS, and they're still not combat ready for the mission it was intended to perform.
So, my question is, will that 55 year life span include the 28 year development lag? Then it's believable. If not, then I expect that 55 year lifespan will be pared down to the average 30-40 year lifespan of an American fighter aircraft service, and new production will probably end a decade or two before then.
Just my prediction.
Gates should have driven a stake through its heart, gotten the money back from LM and gone in another direction - one that would actually work.
Upvote
-3
(23
/
-26)
Close air support, in 2020, is typically flown at around 15,000 feet. Any lower and you're at risk from MANPADS and regiment level AAA like the 2K22 and its combo of radar guided SAMS and 30mm cannons.
It ain't 1980 anymore and 2K22 would chew an A-10 up. Stealth, in this case, lets you get down to MANPAD ceiling (8,000-10,000ft) instead of being forced to the 15,000ft limit of the SA-19 missile because the 2K22 can't get a shooting solution on something it can't see on radar.
So...yeah...your sources are out of date. Please review.
No, the theory is that a AIM-9X Block 2, which can shoot down aircraft behind the firing vehicle, is a bit more advanced and lethal than the AIM-9B deployed 60 years ago. The Russian AA-11 beats the Soviet AA-2 by equally large margins.
As such, if you're within gun range, any you've only got the gun left, you're dead unless the other guy is Winchester (out of missiles) too. In which case, you fucked up because you should have disengaged and called for backup.
F-35A does not carry a cannon for air-to-air. It is included for air-to-ground. Tactics are to not engage with guns, because even if you have a death wish, you're not allowed to risk your $90M jet in the process.
Because it costs relative pennies to retrofit these fixes (literally, concurrency costs are 0.5% of JSF expenses). We're not at war. We can tell pilots to lay off the gun until we swap out the part during the next maintenance cycle. There is no rush, and if there was, it'd take a matter of months to close out the action items.
The whole idea behind the F-35 is continuous improvement. Constant upgrades are to be made throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. This is baked into the design of the vehicle itself, where it takes fewer bolts and fasteners to disassemble the whole thing than previous aircraft just in case we need to beef up a component deep inside the jet.
Upvote
53
(60
/
-7)
Yeah, as long as you cartoonishly misrepresent the project goal, it's super easy to wave your hands around furiously as you claim it's a huge failure.
Upvote
14
(22
/
-8)
Swiss Army knife designs never work well. They are always compromised. Not just in aircraft, but as a general rule.
Upvote
-1
(9
/
-10)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Ah, the Vietnam GUN MYTH.
In reality, the Navy never put guns in their Phantoms, and had better kill ratios the entire war, with a huge improvement after the mid-war halt.
You know why? The Navy had better pilot selection and training. They picked only the best to fly fighters, while the AF treated every pilot as "Universal". They also didn't have the Strategic-bomber dominated "safety" culture the AF had going into the war, and starting up Top Gun improved that as well.
Upvote
16
(27
/
-11)
Not only are rotor craft much more susceptible to small arms fire, but the H&H performance is marginal compared to A-10 which is a major factor in places like Afghanistan.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Oh, so you want to spend even more on procurement programs, as each service gets its own bespoke design? Brilliant concept.
Upvote
-11
(8
/
-19)
It was doomed to mediocracy, if not outright failure, from the very first thought.*
You cannot design a swiss army knife that is as good as a knife, a spoon, a saw, a corkscrew, etc. at each of those tasks.
*unless the first thought and real intent is well paid and full employment for retiring members of the military.
You cannot design a swiss army knife that is as good as a knife, a spoon, a saw, a corkscrew, etc. at each of those tasks.
*unless the first thought and real intent is well paid and full employment for retiring members of the military.
Upvote
-3
(9
/
-12)
Such a pessimistic article! On the upside?
"There are still 873 specific problems in ALIS and other F-35 software (down from 917 in 2018).
If Lockheed can keep up their herculean fix rate, and no new software issues are discovered? The ALIS system will be production-ready by the year 2041!
"There are still 873 specific problems in ALIS and other F-35 software (down from 917 in 2018).
If Lockheed can keep up their herculean fix rate, and no new software issues are discovered? The ALIS system will be production-ready by the year 2041!
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)
Surprised? Half the posts in these threads are posters fighting not just the last war, but a few wars back.
The only reason the F-35 has a gun pod to begin with is retrograde thinking anyway.
Upvote
18
(26
/
-8)
They just strap Jesse Ventura to the bottom of the plane, so it really depends on what he's wearing at the time
Ventura is just as accurate as the gun on the plane. All his shots are going over his targets head.
Upvote
-2
(4
/
-6)
Some errors above: GAU-22/A it's not 3,000 rounds/sec, it's 3,300 rounds/minute (wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer#GAU-22/A), which equals to 55 rounds/sec ~3.2 seconds of firing. With the speeds of modern aircraft, the time that the pilot will have on target is likely minuscule - which is likely why accuracy is so important. For comparison, Su-35 carries 150 rounds (and it's a larger, non-stealth plane).
The Air Force version carries 180 rounds internally, the pod version carries 220.
If I recall correctly, the F-35B and C versions carry external pods due to lack of internal space (I can't find the quote at the moment).
ALIS is made by Lockheed Martin. The replacement, ODIN, will be managed by a JPO-led consortium, which includes LM, but not Boeing (source: https://www.janes.com/article/93861/pen ... -35-s-alis).
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
It wasnt just the USA that paid good money to build these things other countries contributed to the development
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Yes (supposedly.)
They are "conformal" pods mounted along the bottom center-line of the F-35B/C.
They do not interfere with the internal weapons bays operations either.
Being "center-line" mounted, they are much more accurate (and the slower firing rate helps that too.)
The F-35B/C also both have more internal fuel capacity than the F-35A and have larger wings to accommodate the weight.
Upvote
4
(8
/
-4)
Wasn't the F22 having pilot issues with o2 deprivation? I'm thinking, get it out the door and add another Billion to fix is a poor economic policy for Lockheed-Martin.
Did they hire manglement from Boeing? /s
Did they hire manglement from Boeing? /s
Upvote
-2
(3
/
-5)
steelcobra
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
That test a few years back where it acted as an over-the-horizon extension of AEGIS sensors to intercept a missile was pretty cool.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
You know which platform has flown the most CAS sorties in Afghanistan lately? Go on, guess.
Ready?
Spoiler alert!
F/A-18.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Scipio Africanus
Ars Centurion
So are you saying the F-35 was not the low in the high-low mix? What the CSR says "The Joint Strike Fighter was conceived as a relatively affordable fifth-generation aircraft that could be procured in highly common versions for the Air Force and the Navy." is incorrect?
Upvote
-3
(7
/
-10)
For the projected total cost of this single project the US could replace all of its electrical generating capacity with windfarms, with a few hundred billion dollars left over for battery storage.
That this tradeoff would be done for a successful run of fighter jets is a tragedy; that it is being done in service of this jalopy is a farce.
That this tradeoff would be done for a successful run of fighter jets is a tragedy; that it is being done in service of this jalopy is a farce.
Upvote
4
(15
/
-11)