[jessaustin]

If you had stopped with the first sentence, we could have written it off as sarcasm.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program appears to be in a state of suspended development, with little progress made in 2021 toward improving its lackluster performance. The latest report by the Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) reveals stagnation and even backsliding in some fleet reliability measures.

And that’s just the public DOT&E report.

In an unprecedented move, DOT&E is concealing many of the key details of the F-35’s poor performance. For the first time ever, the testing office created a non-public “controlled unclassified information” version of its report, and although there is much overlap between the two versions, the meaningful details about the ever-troubled program are only included in the non-public one.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/03/f-35-program-stagnated...

[vopi]

Could you comment on the price aspect I thought up? As I understand it is cheap and only the cost per hour is an issue. Obviously the actual program is expensive, but I wanna ignore that for now and focus on the actual performance.

Because I'm at work and can't look through the full 372 page non-public report linked, can you provide some page numbers I could look at? I'm curious what the actual issues are in actual use.

Btw I'm not of the same mindset of the other guy, I'm not gonna call you a "Luddite Reformer" because I saw a YouTube video.

From when I know many of the issues are FUD, but obviously there is real issues and I'd like to better educate myself. But I am just a layman with limited research time.

[jessaustin]

I am just a layman with limited research time.

You and me both! Given the wild swings in points-voting seen ITT, it seems perhaps MIC reptiles and other lovers of arcane jargon have more time on their hands than we mere subjects have. I linked the POGO report first as it seems most authoritative with respect to overall program cost and military effectiveness. With respect to the specific question of cost/plane (although I don't think we can just forget cost/hour), this Forbes article has the best explanation I've seen. [0] The beginning of the following selection acknowledges one accounting method that might support the idea that the unit cost is low. However, when more accurate methods are used, that idea makes less sense.

At $78 million the fifth-generation F-35A’s unit cost compares favorably to the latest non-stealth 4.5-generation Western fighter. The Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen-E and F-15EX are more expensive at $85 to $100 million apiece. The older F-16 and Super Hornet are modestly cheaper at $65 to $75 million each. But while these aircraft do have certain performance advantages over the F-35, all are vastly more vulnerable to long-range anti-aircraft missiles proliferating in militaries across the globe.

However, the F-35 unit price metric has the shortcoming of failing to reflect additional costs in spare parts, logistics facilities and so forth that come with F-35 purchases. When those are spread out across F-35A orders in 2021 they lead to a ‘Gross Weapon Unit Cost’ in budget documents of $110 million for 2021, higher than in preceding years due in part to decreased volume of orders.

Overall, though, a moderate increase in unit price arguably isn’t the main issue, because procurement costs account for less than a quarter of the $1.7 trillion projected lifetime cost of the F-35 program.

Instead, a report published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on July 7 warns that its sustainment—currently expected to total $1.27 trillion in real dollars—which threatens to break the Pentagon budget.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2021/07/31/f-35...

[philwelch]

> Given the wild swings in points-voting seen ITT, it seems perhaps MIC reptiles and other lovers of arcane jargon have more time on their hands than we mere subjects have.

I'd point out that probably the majority of "MIC reptiles" would be opposed to the F35. After all, there are more defense contractors who build competitors to the F35 than there are defense contractors who build the F35. For instance, I distinctly remember watching a "report" on the F35 produces by a Canadian network--I think CBC but I'm not sure--which was a fairly obvious PR hit by Boeing, given that half of the report was basically a sales pitch by Boeing "experts" talking about how great the Super Hornet is.

[some_random]

It's so interesting how luddite Reformers hold such a sway over the usually techno-optimist HN. Turns out that new technology has teething problems, what a shocker.

[jessaustin]

Wow, my first comment on the thread, consisting entirely of a quote from expert analysts, and already I'm a "luddite Reformer". (Idiosyncratic capitalization also doesn't help you seem balanced and rational.)

This turkey was designed in the 1990s. The contract was awarded in 2001. The first f35 flew in 2006. When will this "technology" no longer be "new"? Presumably it will be some time, since the entire fleet was grounded again last week due to safety concerns.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/f-35-flee...

[spamizbad]

I think the reason why you're getting some pushback is because we've heard all these before with another aircraft that had similar teething and development problems: the F-15.

The F-15 project was supposed to be a small and light fighter but feature creep" blew the project up into a massively expensive boondoggle. Some of this was due to the fear of the MIG-25; an aircraft we later learned wasn't so scary.

Yet today, the overpriced, chronic cost-overruning F-15 sits at an impressive 109:0 kill to loss ratio, making it the best performing aircraft in the United State's history.

But you would be correct in saying the F-35 is no F-15. It has a stealth coating that is expensive to maintain (this is true for all stealth aircraft). It also flies with a ton of electronics to function as a "sensor network in the sky".

But in many ways, this is similar to the complaints about the F-15 and its (For the time) dizzying array of modern technologies: An advanced lookdown/shootdown radar, support for BVR missiles, IFF, EW and ECM systems all linked to a central computer. Technically other aircraft had these technologies in the 1970s, but none until the F-15 had them all in the same aircraft. Fast-forward a few decades and that "feature creep" doesn't even quality as "bare bones" for any air superiority fighter.

Anyway, if you want a multi-role aircraft without the stealth or sensor network gizmos of the F-35 there's the Gripen E series. Its purchase price is greater than the F-35 but its operating costs are much less. If you don't envision your country's airforce performing too many SEAD missions this tradeoff might make sense... but there's no free lunch!

[bumby]

I believe the list is long of airframes where you could initially find this complaint. I think the F18 had similar concerns after it originally lost its experimental competition to the F16. But the F18 found itself as a capable workhorse for the Navy for decades. Same with the Space Shuttle, etc.

[spamizbad]

The F-16, incidentally, got loaded to the gills with expensive gizmos after the fact because the Airforce (and other F-16 customers) quickly realized it made the aircraft a far more effective platform.

[ncmncm]

Space Shuttle is a clinker, here. It never did anything well, and its costs gutted other, overwhelmingly more valuable programs.

[bumby]

Generalization (not specialization) was it’s strong point as well as it’s weakness. The reason why it was a design boondoggle was because it had to meet the requirements of many masters. People forget it has a number of DoD missions in addition to the more publicly known NASA missions.

[mr_toad]

> Yet today, the overpriced, chronic cost-overruning F-15 sits at an impressive 109:0 kill to loss ratio, making it the best performing aircraft in the United State's history.

Not to mention Israeli history.

[some_random]

As far as I know you're not a Reformer, which is a proper noun and therefore capitalized, but the "expert analyst" you quoted is. Honestly that tells me enough about your familiarity with this subject

[jessaustin]

Please link to any source that indicates "Luddite" shouldn't be capitalized or "reformer" should, especially with Capt. Grazier cited as some sort of exemplar of the concept. You've had lots to say ITT but haven't cited a single authority to indicate you're not just making it all up.

[Armisael16]

The Reformers were/are a group arguing for a particular class of weapons and vehicles in procurement, mostly focusing on relatively low-tech solutions. They’re most famous for their influence in the Fighter Mafia and in the Bradley (see: Pentagon Wars). They’re… controversial.

That one gets capitalized because it’s a proper noun (is that a confusion name? sure).

Luddite strictly should be capitalized as well, but there isn’t any confusion around that one and it isn’t the focus, so I can understand why it wasn’t capitalized. I wouldn’t’ve.

[philwelch]

The Reformers aren't even the only group of people involved here. There's a lot of bad press for the F-35 that can be linked back to competing firms such as Boeing. Also, Russian media in particular likes to push stories that make the US look bad. Obviously there are crossovers (e.g. Pierre Sprey, one of the most notorious Reformers, made numerous appearances on RT).

[bumby]

You do understand that most new airframes take a decade or more of R&D before they are put in service, right?

[jessaustin]

This thing is in service, so conventional wisdom about how long it takes to do stuff before that is irrelevant. From the introduction of my original link:

Despite more than 20 years and approximately $62.5 billion spent so far on research and development alone, program officials still haven’t been able to deliver an aircraft that can fly as often as needed or to demonstrate its ability to perform in combat, which places military personnel in jeopardy.

I would have said the "R&D decade" was the 1990s since JAST began in 1993 and developmental contracts were awarded in 1996, but POGO are conservative in their judgments.

[bumby]

Your first comment was about suspended development, implying you think the system should be part of a continuous R&D cycle. Yet this comment implies you think the system should be outside of development. It's hard to tell what you're criticizing when your points are inconsistent.

I question some of the critiques in your link. For example, they claim the JSFs 61% availability rates are far below the standard of 75-80%. But if you look at published numbers, none of the legacy aircraft F15/F16/F18 variants (which have had decades to work out reliability issues) are above a 60% availability.[1]

What, specifically, are you critical of in terms of the JSF capability? Is that criticism due to what you perceived as mismanaged development or mismanaged priorities (e.g., the tradeoffs of a single platform)? And what is the base rate for comparison?

[1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57713

[jessaustin]

I don't agree that any of my statements have had any of those implications. USA citizens have the right to complain about any expensive government program. F35 is a $1.7T program, which qualifies as expensive. It's perfectly ordinary to see administrators of non-military programs called before Congress and raked over the coals for spending that seems excessive to some legislator playing to the basest instincts of voters. We recently decided, somehow, that a few billion dollars was too much of a tax credit to justify keeping millions of American children out of poverty. [0] We never see any elected politician complaining about military spending, however.

It's a commonplace that we spend more on the military than the next ten nations put together, most of whom are our allies. That obscures the more amazing fact that over a third of the military spending in the world is spent by USA. Obviously the Pentagon budget should be halved if not quartered, as we were promised before the Saudis dropped the WTC. In such a context, there would be no room for a plane that offers the prospect of more expense instead of more capability. Northrop lobbyists and their employees at think tanks and in the media might be able to dry-lab some "rates" and "figures" to distract from the obvious state of the F35 program. The scale of the disaster cannot be hidden from unbiased investigators. Even if it never makes the evening war media news, those who care to know can consult experts like POGO.

However, if you insist on a criticism in the proper jargon, F35 will never, ever, regardless of how much is spent, be as capable at close air support as the vastly less expensive A10 "Warthog". You can ask any American serviceman who has served on the ground in the last two decades. This isn't the only important role for a military aircraft, but it is an important role.

[0] https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly...

[formerly_proven]

> This turkey

Spreyian detected, opinion discarded.