F-35: The truth?

[Kyleb]

And, it's LOCOWEED

Who are you holding up as a paragon of success? I can't think of many aircraft in modern times that went from drawing board into service without hiccups - some major, some minor. See: Dreamliner.

See F-15 See F-16 See A-10 See 727 See DC-9-.

You made my point. None in almost 2 generations.

[Mark Allen M]

Sorry that you are so upset about my inquiry for knowledge of a particular warbird. I'm not calling anybody or anything names. Additionally, the MMF header says this:

Military Matters
This section is for discussion of all things military, past or present, that are not aviation related. Armor, Infantry, Navy stuff all welcome here.

Is the F-35 not a warbird and is the discussion not aviation related? Then why not this forum?

The only defense I can think of as far as your thread being moved from one place to another is the fact that by all accounts (and several regurgitated WIX threads on the subject) the F-35 is not recognized as a warbird by it's true definition yet. It's in the category of modern military hardware and not warbird related. Even though it's a bit knit picky IMO, it is what it is here on WIX.

Whatever category the F-35 belongs to, it's still no less an interesting conversation you have generated.

[The Inspector]

And, it's LOCOWEED

Who are you holding up as a paragon of success? I can't think of many aircraft in modern times that went from drawing board into service without hiccups - some major, some minor. See: Dreamliner.

If you have ever worked for Lockheed, you would understand why people call it Locoweed!

YEP!!!

[fritzthefox]

You could buy 780 Spitfires (price adjusted for inflation) for the cost of one F-35.

The F-35 would have to go home and reload 4 times to shoot them all down, if it used one (1) cannon round per kill.

780 Spitfires can carry over 390,000 pounds of bombs. The F-35 can carry 18000 pounds (if it sacrifices stealth).

The Spitfire has a slightly shorter range, but it can operate from a grass field. In order for the F-35 to do that, it would have to use VTOL, bringing its range to parity with the Spitfire.

The F-35 can out climb and outrun the Spit, but the Spitfire can out turn it. (Nothing new there)



Give me a squadron of Spitfires.

[CAPFlyer]

See F-15

See F100-PW-100/Compressor Stall/Repeated "fixes"
See LRUs that failed after less than 3 flight hours
See Fatigue Cracking in the Center Wing Box after less than 100 hours of operation in the first 3 blocks of A models
See Aerodynamic issues that resulted in the dog-tooth, lengthened speed brake, and then stiffener when the bigger brake failed multiple times under light loading

See F-16

See multiple LRU and FCS failures during development including at least 2 PIO incidents that damaged test aircraft.
See AESA radar abject failure and delayed availability of all modes of operation due to "self jamming" (aka electronic interference)

Oh and BTW, the C-130 hasn't been "trouble free" either. It had cost overruns nearly as large (percentage wise) as the C-5 program, the original props had a habit of flying off, the spine of the A and B models failed several times just aft of the forward cargo door hatch due to a failure to properly reinforce the carry-over structure (which is why that door was removed in the C and subsequent models), The wing boxes were (and still are) a continual area of problems and only multiple re-winging of the aircraft and severe restrictions on fuel distribution when doing operations other than "airline" style flights has prevented more wings from departing inflight.

You want to know what the least troublesome system entry into the DoD inventory has been since the 1950s (by DoD and GAO accounts)? The B-1B. 100 airframes delivered ahead of time and under budget, IOC early, fully deployment on time, and it had a better nuclear alert readiness than the B-52 ever had. But even then, that was after so many of the problems were worked out PRIOR to the program via the B-1A and the flying that North American did on their own dime.

[tom d. friedman]

since when does the usmc get the top notch equipment?? they are always the 1st called w/ substandard gear. the f- 35 is a royal cluster f--ck & way out of line $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ wise!!

[bdk]

RAND Questions Value of Joint Fighter Programs
Defense Daily 12/16/2013
Author: Mike McCarthy

Joint aircraft programs do not produce the expected life-cycle cost savings across the military and the benefits are too small to offset the cost growth that takes place in the acquisition phase because the complexities of developing an aircraft to meet different mission requirements for each service, according to a report released Monday by the RAND Corporation.

The RAND Corporation, a non-profit tank with close Pentagon ties, compared joint programs and single-service aircraft the research and development and procurement phase as well a lifecycle costs and concluded that joint programs don’t yield their advertised value.

“The maximum percentage theoretical savings in joint aircraft acquisition and operations and support compared with equivalent single-service programs is too small to offset the additional average cost growth that joint aircraft programs experience in the acquisition phase,” RAND said.

RAND looked heavily at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which is in low-rate production for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the most expensive program in the Pentagon’s history. The study said it is doubtful the F-35will achieve the predicted life-cycle savings, contrasting it with single-service programs, including the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor.

“Under none of the plausible conditions we analyzed did JSF have a lower (life-cycle cost) estimate than the notional singe-service programs,” the study said.

The report, commissioned by the Air Force, said that service specific requirements dampen commonality, lead to higher complexities and drive cost growth. The F-35 has been plagued by major cost overruns and delays that have forced the Pentagon to restructure it three times.

The Pentagon now estimates the acquisition of the 2,443 Lockheed Martin [LMT] aircraft for the three services will be around $390 billion with a total program life-cycle cost of about $1 trillion.

RAND said joint programs have also resulted in shrunken industrial base for fighter aircraft and also bring greater risk in a time of conflict. If a technical problem causes a grounding of the fleet, there are fewer other types of aircraft to send into the fight, RAND said.