Aviation Week Grounds Top Critic of F-35 Project

[Wing_Z]

This aircraft is 2 years late, and 50% more expensive than initial estimates...sound familiar?
It has a vocal critic in seasoned defence writer Bill Sweetman.
He's just had the muzzle applied, see
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/aviation-week-grounds-top-critic-of-lockheed-jet/

[Prowler1111]

The way i see it, the F-35 is a technological breakthrough in many aspects, including novel tech and cutting edge electronics, of course it was going to be expensive and over schedule, BUT, the problem was the way the whole idea was sold, maybe trying to lure more buyers or maybe to get as much numbers as they could (orders), but bottom line, i really believe that´s the failure in the whole F-35 program, they projected a jack of all trades at rock bottom prices with fast deliveries.Will it ever live up to the expectations? I hardly believe it will on it´s early versions, maybe (if there ever be) a G or F F-35..IMHO (ducks under his desk, waiting for the flak)

Best regards
Prowler

[Ken Stallings]

First line of the article: "One of the aviation industry’s biggest critics of the Pentagon’s gajillion-dollar fighter jet has been temporarily barred from writing about the controversial plane."

Wow! That's a nice effort at objectivity! NOT!!!

Frankly the writer of note is only slightly less bombastic and wrong! The F-35 program has not failed. Delay is not failure.

Perhaps Aviation Week rightly concluded that the author had lost his balance and objectivity on the subject. If so, I think the writer's own words provide the most compelling proof the magazine would be right to hold such concerns.

The F-35 is an amazing leap in technology. When you make such leaps, delays are natural. Timelines are estimates.

The delays are due to very high standards of achievement. I understand and accept that. But, again, meeting high standards and encountering delays does not constitute failure.

B-17, B-29, P-38, F4U, P-51, Spitfire ... Want to know what all these aircraft have in common?

They all encountered significant delays and cost overruns in development.

The British almost cancelled the Spitfire! The B-17 prototype crashed and was delayed by nearly two years. The B-29 was not merely plagued with mechanical problems and delays during development, but went to combat with basic engine problems that causes numerous fires, many fatal. The immortal P-51 went to combat with an engine totally unsuited for the airframe. In fact, the British were initially wanting to cancel the entire program because they were that unhappy with the performance with the initial Allison engine.

The P-51 had to be re-engined before it became what it became.

The F4U failed its initial carrier trials due to many problems, including a terrible asymetric stall characteristic while in level flight.

The P-38 suffered a number of problems itself, including an issue with the elevators in a dive that killed many pilots until a balance was added to the elevators.

What I just pointed out was a littany of inherent design bugs that due to wartime pressures were never worked out in the test phase. Instead, these aircraft were fielded with these known problems.

The reason why the F-35 is delayed is because the services are no longer willing to field aircraft and fix them. Instead, the philosophy today is to make it right and then field it -- a philosophy that I agree with entirely.

But, the price for that philosophy is longer delays.

The F-35 will be a magnificent aircraft. The VSTOL version using the lift fan is already an innovation that earned Lockheed Martin another Collier Trophy! You don't earn this kind of top shelf hardware through failure folks!

Ken

[deathfromafar]

To me, the project has some brilliant technologies that when employed will give the user one of the most advanced Strike Fighters ever to take to the skies. However, there was a huge argument made at one time that it would be better to scrap the F-22 and go with the "far less expensive" JSF Aircraft. Turns out the F-35 is inching above the fly-away cost of the Raptor and is half the plane. If they had delivered this at even close to the original projections, I'd say great. Personally I would have just put off building this plane till later and making more F-22's(which would lower the fly-away costs) and get all the services on board with a general MRF like the Superbug. A mix of those and the Raptor would be just fine and be cheaper in the end. As far as the schedule, originally the JSF Aircraft wasn't supposed to be fielded until late 2015 to 2020. The project was pushed up even when certain technologies have yet to mature into fruition capability.

As to this rap from Aviation Week, I still have the magazine they published regarding the Navy giving up the Super Tomcat for the Superbug. Lots of fussing and fuming within the Navy Fighter community about that. Not so much fussing anymore although I can understand the reluctance of letting go of a hell of a great jet!

[TARPSBird]

Ken, I have to give ya credit, you always come with a full clip in your weapon. :d
As for DFA's comment about the Tomcat vs. Hornet debate, I have to admit that even I am finally being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Hornet era of Naval Aviation.

[MaddogK]

I'd have to side with Deathfromafar on this, the F-35 is a marvel (on paper) but delays and cost overruns are making it less of a deal than it was designed for- replacement of the more expensive Raptor. The JSF reminds me of the the Seawolf sub that was cancelled in favor if the less expensive Virginia that turned out less capable and almost equal in price, and of course the Osprey.

I don't have a problem with advancing technology (when needed) but I DO mind paying the bills for these ultra sophisticated weapon systems that aren't really needed and require 5+ years of field testing before they're ready to go into production.

[deathfromafar]

Just to add real quick, my above post was in no way to detract from what Ken stated. I feel what he stated was on target. My only point is, that the F-35 is outgrowing it's original specs and costs as it has been pushed to the front of the line ahead of plan. I stated my personal opinion that it "might" have been netter to put if off a little while but I know that some aircraft currently in service are in dire need of replacement and we're kind of in a gap on some things. My concern remains that pushing the F-35 up so quickly may be the cause of problems and cost overruns in the program. I am confident it will be a success in due time.

[tigisfat]

I'm not saying that the project calls for it, but if a shutdown and cancellation was required this late in the ballgame, it'd never happen and the jet woul get pushed through anyway. That's the way politics have turned in the west.

When talking about a defense project this size, it's nearly impossible to really gauge whether it's like many other 'cutting edge' projects that've had teething and budget problems but will prevail, or if it needs to get axed. There are few people who're truly qualified to say so.

I go back and forth on the F-35, personally. I may have listed more cons, but I'm not suggesting that any specific item I've listed has a certain amount of gravity.

pros:
1. It's netcentric, datalinked and 'eyes-open' method of conducting warefare is truly the way of the future.
2. It will maintain our ability to produce combative aircraft and prevent further decline of our development and manufacturing capacity. If we even go five years without designing or producing, the affects will be felt for a long time. We don't need a giant military, but we do need the ability to create one fast.
3. The avionics produced for the program will benefit many future projects and breathe additional life into our combat avionics subcontractors.
4. People need jobs!! The production lines around the country will benefit many.

cons:
1. It's cost could be near or exceed F-22 territory without bringing the same capabilities to the table.
2. Some believe it was supposed to be cheap and a light fighter/bomber replacement, and it's turned into somehting else.
3. It's been said that we can produce new blocks of F-16s that can do the same exact things.
4. As expat said, and it must be considered, Foreign F-35 sales are likely to be affected by it's price.
5. A potential additional threat to foreign sales is the infrastructure needed to fully integrate all of the F-35's capabilities into operations.

[tigisfat]

Some purely novel and speculative options from the faaaaar left field:

1. Scuttle the project and begin development on a new fighter. We've done it before, to varying results. Not all projects that are overbudget or have serious engineering problems work out great.

2. Once the price approaches F-22 territory, cancel it. Invest the money into the F-22 project, buying many more planes and giving the F-22 technologies that it should've had but doesn't, like link 16. (that may have changed, I'm outta the loop now)

3. Cancel the project and integrate it's technologies into new F-16 variants, such as the DAS system.

4. Why would a future light fighter have a pilot in it? What a waste of potential. Now we'll be bogged down for another generation by g-tolerances and life support systems. I agree that most aircraft need sit-in pilots, but fighters need to be unmanned more than any other type of aircraft. Imagine what you could do with a fighter that could be G'd out to our modern structures' limits. The weight savings from removing everything a pilot needs would be HUGE and only help an airframe turn even harder. That DAS system that has full sensing in every direction SCREAMS to be integrated into a UAV pilot's battle nest. Holy cow, GET THE PILOTS OUT OF FIGHTERS and let them do INSANE stuff. Number four is a modified version of my first suggestion. Scuttle this thing and make a new one.

[deathfromafar]

I'm not saying that the project calls for it, but if a shutdown and cancellation was required this late in the ballgame, it'd never happen and the jet woul get pushed through anyway. That's the way politics have turned in the west.

When talking about a defense project this size, it's nearly impossible to really gauge whether it's like many other 'cutting edge' projects that've had teething and budget problems but will prevail, or if it needs to get axed. There are few people who're truly qualified to say so.

I go back and forth on the F-35, personally. I may have listed more cons, but I'm not suggesting that any specific item I've listed has a certain amount of gravity.

pros:
1. It's netcentric, datalinked and 'eyes-open' method of conducting warefare is truly the way of the future.
2. It will maintain our ability to produce combative aircraft and prevent further decline of our development and manufacturing capacity. If we even go five years without designing or producing, the affects will be felt for a long time. We don't need a giant military, but we do need the ability to create one fast.
3. The avionics produced for the program will benefit many future projects and breathe additional life into our combat avionics subcontractors.
4. People need jobs!! The production lines around the country will benefit many.

cons:
1. It's cost could be near or exceed F-22 territory without bringing the same capabilities to the table.
2. Some believe it was supposed to be cheap and a light fighter/bomber replacement, and it's turned into somehting else.
3. It's been said that we can produce new blocks of F-16s that can do the same exact things.
4. As expat said, and it must be considered, Foreign F-35 sales are likely to be affected by it's price.
5. A potential additional threat to foreign sales is the infrastructure needed to fully integrate all of the F-35's capabilities into operations.

Spot on call! Glad you covered all that. I have to say as much as I love the old Viper, I am a wee bit leery about pigging them out with the FAST Packs up top and then slinging all that extra crap under em. The wings and tail stabs are the same area and I wonder about limits/loadings. The old Agile Falcon idea would have been great. The JSDF AF Mitsubishi F-2 layout would suffice I believe. Honestly, as I have noted before, it wouldn't break my heart to see the Superbug in the Air Force and I am betting the now steep price of the F-35 will open markets for the Superbug. It's got all the tenants and then some and certainly more Low Observable than the Viper.

[Wing_Z]

Perhaps the 6th-gen fighter aircraft will be unmanned.
That improves the chances that a high-value manned asset like the F-22 can be retained, as the command node in a networked UCAV environment.

There are two major threats to the F-35 project.
One is the F-35B.
I hadn't quite thought about it this way, but the JSF is actually 2 and a half quite different airframes, not one at all.
The programme is being crippled by the supersonic STOVL model.
That design goal has evaded designers for years and not without good reason.
If the Brits chop 100 million pounds off their end, as they are bound to do, one or more of the F-35 variants will have to go.
This opens the door to the second threat, from outside: Boeing and the Superbug.
Already Boeing is being accused of muddying the waters, with claims that their plane can do 90% of what the F-35 claims (without having shown it actually can), but at a fraction of the cost.

With defence spending of the partner nations reducing every year for the foreseeable future, at the very least the JSF programme will slow down - perhaps to the point where it will be overtaken by events.
Much of its technology might be transferred into the UCAV fleet, then.

[tigisfat]

With defence spending of the partner nations reducing every year for the foreseeable future, at the very least the JSF programme will slow down - perhaps to the point where it will be overtaken by events.
Much of its technology might be transferred into the UCAV fleet, then.

Good post, and I tend to agree with you, but it's too late to stop the F-35 in America. I'd bet everything I own that it will continue on for better or for worse into regular fleet service.

[deathfromafar]

The programme is being crippled by the supersonic STOVL model.
That design goal has evaded designers for years and not without good reason.

I've often wondered about this. While there's no question the capability is there, but it comes with expense in a number of areas. even if the RAF/RN-FAA kills that requirement, the Marines are still pushing for this heavily. While the setup works, the weight penalty and all that vital crap for STOVL Ops, like the multi-segment articulated nozzle and lift fan with a clutch/gear box with a 90 elbow to the fan. Yikes! I didn't mention all the pretty little articulated door mechanisms/servos to plug holes to preserve stealth. OMG, I need another drink!
Honestly, I think that requirement should be dropped and just go with both a Conventional Model and Carrier Type. Speaking of the latter, I am concerned about what I am hearing on the C model now projecting at being well overweight and underpowered. I understand this has been a big worry from the Navy for a while besides the fact they aren't too keen on reverting to Single Engine Bluewater Ops for the first time since the A-7. I remember seeing blurbs from Lockheed Martin about drawing board versions of the F-35C with twin F414 engines placed together like the Superbug. Probably never happen but hey time will tell how bad another TFX style 1-size-fits-all Happy Meal Plastic Toy Jet Fighter does!

[tigisfat]

I've often wondered about this. While there's no question the capability is there, but it comes with expense in a number of areas. even if the RAF/RN-FAA kills that requirement, the Marines are still pushing for this heavily. While the setup works, the weight penalty and all that vital crap for STOVL Ops, like the multi-segment articulated nozzle and lift fan with a clutch/gear box with a 90 elbow to the fan. Yikes! I didn't mention all the pretty little articulated door mechanisms/servos to plug holes to preserve stealth. OMG, I need another drink!
Honestly, I think that requirement should be dropped and just go with both a Conventional Model and Carrier Type. Speaking of the latter, I am concerned about what I am hearing on the C model now projecting at being well overweight and underpowered. I understand this has been a big worry from the Navy for a while besides the fact they aren't too keen on reverting to Single Engine Bluewater Ops for the first time since the A-7. I remember seeing blurbs from Lockheed Martin about drawing board versions of the F-35C with twin F414 engines placed together like the Superbug. Probably never happen but hey time will tell how bad another TFX style 1-size-fits-all Happy Meal Plastic Toy Jet Fighter does!

I'm kinda wondering if the F-35 even has a place in the Navy with the superhornet already integrated flawlessly. It's kinda redundant. Does the F-35 really do anything that much beyond the superhornet? If anything, the Navy needs a serious interceptor/fleet AtoA protection aircraft like the F-22.

As for the CVTOL model, I understand that's it's award winning engineering, but isn't it a little too much and complicated? That looks to me like the single most complicated way of getting VTOL capabilities out of a fighter jet. Maybe the F-35 design would just be better off without a VTOL variant. It sounds good on paper, having three different versions of the 'same' jet, but the VTOL just seems contrived and what I call 'do it anyway' shoehorn engineering.

I can't offer any substance to either point, they're merely observations from the outside looking in.

[Naki]

IMV the best VSTOL model in the orginal JSF competition was the Boeing design (depite been very ugly) and was more like the proven Harrier in concept.

The Lockheed design was the next best thing with its shaft driven lift fan but this was at a cost in weight and probably was the riskier option.

The McDonnell Douglas VSTOL design (which didn't get beyond the paper stage and was the eventual downfall of McDD) employed an extra engine for VSTOL which was heavier still.

IMV the Lockheed design was the best conventional aircraft whilst the Boeing was a better VSTOL. The Lockheed aircraft won because it was a better compromise and as a good majority of the aircraft were going to be coventional and carrier based not VSTOL the push to accept the Lockheed design was driven by the USAF and Navy (just my view).

Maybe they should of had two completely different designs as there are too many compromises trying to base it on one aircraft - witness what happened to the F-111 - it was trying to be all sorts of things and ended up been just a land based strike fighter (and good one once the bugs were ironed out). It was way too big to be an effective Navy air to air fighter.

Some of the best land based combat aircraft have come from Naval fighters (LTV Corsair, McDD Phantom & Hornet, Buccaner etc)..maybe they should of started with a conventional Naval aircraft first and then came out with land based version..and the Marines, Italian, Spanish & RN got something entirely different

[Railrunner130]

While he's right, it's not his position as a journalist to point that out.

[Odie]

Ken, I have to give ya credit, you always come with a full clip in your weapon. :d
As for DFA's comment about the Tomcat vs. Hornet debate, I have to admit that even I am finally being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Hornet era of Naval Aviation.

Tarps....you and me both...still can't help but mutter "dang bug" when one of them comes up on the screensaver, tho ! :icon_lol:

[tigisfat]

As much as everyone misses the F-14, the superhornet is a great aircraft that's provided the Navy with a lot of capability for it's dollars. :salute:

[Odie]

As much as everyone misses the F-14, the superhornet is a great aircraft that's provided the Navy with a lot of capability for it's dollars. :salute:

Agreed, Tig...it's just taking some time to get used to it. I will admit that seeing the SH demo at Oceana for several years in a row and speaking with the SH crews, I'm building a grudging admiration for the bird that replaced Grumman's Big Cat. It's eye-watering to watch being put through its paces. No slight to the Superbug at all...just missing the Tom.

I believe it was you that mentioned as to the F-35's place given that the SH is now doing yeoman's work. Wasn't it intended as a replacement for the legacy F-18Cs when they are retired? As well as an upgrade a/c to replace/bolster the Harrier?

[tigisfat]

Agreed, Tig...it's just taking some time to get used to it. I will admit that seeing the SH demo at Oceana for several years in a row and speaking with the SH crews, I'm building a grudging admiration for the bird that replaced Grumman's Big Cat. It's eye-watering to watch being put through its paces. No slight to the Superbug at all...just missing the Tom.

I believe it was you that mentioned as to the F-35's place given that the SH is now doing yeoman's work. Wasn't it intended as a replacement for the legacy F-18Cs when they are retired? As well as an upgrade a/c to replace/bolster the Harrier?

Exactly. I'm no expert in Naval Aviation, but I don't understand why the Navy needs F-35s with the superhornet around. The both serve the same role, and carrying another parts cache aboard carriers, plus having maintainers trained on different aircraft onboard has to hurt somehow. That would be pointless with two aircraft serving the same role.

..............Here it comes.......Maybe the USAF needs to buy superhornets, at the minimum for Guard units like they did with A-7s. They're cheap(er) reliable and good.

[cheezyflier]

i want to ask a question. wouldn't the vstol capability be a good thing for carrier duty?
my imagination says that would make landing easier for pilots on low visibility days. if i remember right (not sure) the harrier burned alot of fuel doing the vertical/hover thing, and i was told the new plane was better at it.

otherwise moist of the stuff you guys are talking about is over my head. like probably most civvies, i like the f-35 because it looks like a flying ferrari, and when i've seen them at air shows i see maneuvers no one else does.

[Ken Stallings]

I'm kinda wondering if the F-35 even has a place in the Navy with the superhornet already integrated flawlessly. It's kinda redundant. Does the F-35 really do anything that much beyond the superhornet? If anything, the Navy needs a serious interceptor/fleet AtoA protection aircraft like the F-22.

As for the CVTOL model, I understand that's it's award winning engineering, but isn't it a little too much and complicated? That looks to me like the single most complicated way of getting VTOL capabilities out of a fighter jet. Maybe the F-35 design would just be better off without a VTOL variant. It sounds good on paper, having three different versions of the 'same' jet, but the VTOL just seems contrived and what I call 'do it anyway' shoehorn engineering.

I can't offer any substance to either point, they're merely observations from the outside looking in.

The Navy cancelled the A-12 and decided to go with the Super Hornet. It is a nice aircraft. But, it was merely evolutionary. The price the Navy paid for the decision is that they have zero stealth capabilities. That limitation will rear a very ugly head if the US has to go to war against an adversary with first rate IADS and the USAF unable to respond in the timeframe needed due to whatever condition could cause that to happen.

The Navy makes a big point of saying they have about "three acres of soveriegn American territory ready to go anwhere in the world." That's a good point to make. If I were USN then I'd make that argument also. But, if the enemy's IADS renders sorties into the littoral areas a suicide mission, and the missions cannot go until the USAF shows up with the stealth platforms, then the USN isn't providing the nation the full measure.

This is why the Navy is so rightly keen to get their carrier version of the F-35. They know well as I do that the Super Hornet is great for battles against nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be an entirely different ballgame against a nation with the most modern IADS, especially if the USAF stealth platforms couldn't blow holes in the IADS for the Navy to fly through.

IADS are the far cheaper solution to defense, but the drawback is they are purely defensive systems. The United States has vastly more complex interests than can be serviced by purely defensive systems. Offense is a necessary component of US military policy. Therefore, we have to retain the airpower option as viable. There is a high price to pay for that.

Ultimately, however, the price for failing to do it dwarfs the price paid to do it. This hard reality must not be lost on the people.

Ken

[tigisfat]

otherwise moist of the stuff you guys are talking about is over my head. like probably most civvies, i like the f-35 because it looks like a flying ferrari, and when i've seen them at air shows i see maneuvers no one else does.

Where on earth have you seen F-35s perform shows with full maneuver profiles? Have I been missing out?

[cheezyflier]

sorry, i was confuzed. it was the f-22 i saw. it was here:

http://www.cias.org/