The F-35 Flies
Published on Dec 16, 2006 at 11:35 am.
5 Comments.
Filed under aeronautics.
Yesterday, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter flew its first test flight. Besides really liking aircraft, it was interesting to me because they are building the things just a few miles from where I live, and the test flight was also just a few miles from my home. Prototype aircraft have flown, but not the F-35. This, too, though was a test platform, not a production model aircraft. Additional changes will be needed for the military versions.
The flight went OK for the most part. There was reportedly a minor glitch with one of the airspeed indicators. As a precaution, the flight was curtailed, so it was much shorter than had been originally planned. Things are starting to look up a bit for the program, which has seen many delays and cost overruns.
The F-35 is a really cool and snazzy aircraft. I think that it is great, and I also feel that we need a new and better fighter to maintain air superiority (What we’ve got now more than meets that need at the present, but we need to be thinking into the future. These things take far too long to develop if we later decide that we need one in a hurry.). But, long term readers will recall that I have reservations about the program. For one thing, it is far too costly, and I have a feeling that the costs will eventually keep the F-35 from full deployment. As I said earlier, the cost overruns are likely to kill it. Already, it is projected to cost about $250 billion to buy a little over 2500 aircraft. That’s $100 million apiece! Not too many months ago, the Pentagon announced delays in acquisitions. That pushes back production, and increases unit cost. The more these things cost, the fewer we buy, and the more they’ll cost. This is the classic aircraft appropriations death spiral. Eventually, the aircraft are so costly that we quit buying them.
I also question the primary rationalle behind the Joint Strike Fighter. The idea is to save money by making all of the aircraft the same. That way, you can save on training costs, maintenance costs, spare parts costs, etc. From a business model, this might make sense, … sort of. After all, one way that low cost air carriers keep their costs down is to have standardized fleets. Southwest, for example, only flies Boeing 737s. The reality is that it won’t work that way for the military. You can’t run wars like a business. For one thing, the cost of failure is far too high. A mistake has far more serious consequences than a drop in stock prices. What if it turns out that this particular model aircraft has a weakness that the enemy can exploit? Would you really want all of our aircraft to have that same weakness? Also, these things are going to be so expensive that there is no way that it will be our only fighter aircraft. We simply won’t be able to afford to buy only them. Then, we are back to where we are, with multiple aircraft being flown.
Add to that the basic premise that one aircraft can do everything. I definitely disagree wiht that. The F-35 is supposed to act as a fighter, bomber, interceptor, close air support, recon, etc. We currently have multiple aircraft doing those things. There is a very good reason for that. What makes one aircraft so really good at one thing is often the very characteristic that makes it less optimal for some other task. The F-35 is supposed to be good at everything. Well, as we know from looking at Windows on computers, trying to do everything good often means that you don’t do anything excellent. Again, do we really want to spend all that money for aircraft that do “good enough” rather than being the best possible aircraft in each roll? The Pentagon has this whole laundry list of what the F-35 needs to do and carry. That is so that the same basic aircraft can serve the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. Well, that is fine in theory. But, did anyone every look to see that each service has a unique function in our military? If so, then doesn’t it make sense that they should have a unique aircraft to best fulfill their mission, rather than trying to modify a basic design to fit? But, of course, nobody ever asks me.
And, the final issue is that the cost of the F-35 probably dooms any future aircraft of its type. Unmanned aircraft are getting better and better, and they cost far less. Originally unmanned aircraft were like radio controlled toy aircraft, but with a small camera onboard. Well, those cameras are getting better and better. The unmanned aircraft are bigger, more powerful, and more capable. They even can now carry bombs, missiles, and guns. It is no stretch of the imaginination to realize that soon they will also be able to do just about everything that the manned aircraft are doing. And, they will be able to do it cheaper, and with the “pilot” safely out of harm’s way. Now, I know that just about every pilot on Earth will scream “No!” at that idea, but I think that is the way thay warfare is going. And, once that capability is reached, it will be very hard to justify something as costly as the F-35.
Just my take on it.
-Astroprof
Image Credit: Lockheed Martin
High Flyer on December 16, 2006 at 4:19 pm: 1
Regarding the conclusions in last paragraph see these news items from the past week on weaponized UAVs. Its already happening and will only become more widespread.
Recoilless technology provides killer app for UAVs @
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6590/
http://www.helitorque.com/portal/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=360
RTI and TAG Join Forces for a Recoilless UAV Gun
http://www.hsdailywire.com/printPage.php?name=2981
Ken Larson on December 16, 2006 at 7:52 pm: 2
There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armamentsâ€
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def.Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
Astroprof on December 16, 2006 at 8:31 pm: 3
Thanks for both of your comments. I appreciate the input, particularly since this is out of my area of expertise (though, obviously not out of area of interests).
Brian on December 17, 2006 at 10:29 am: 4
The F-35 may well be the last ‘new’ manned warplane built. I wonder what this will do for the career of ‘pilot’ in the armed forces?
For reasons that are not clear to me at the dawn of aviation one had to be an officer and a gentleman to fly an aeroplane. I do recall flying sergeants and petty officers in our Navy but that seems to have gone by the wayside during WW II.
Which seems absurd on the face of it - as a matter of routine sergeants are entrusted with tanks and crews of three men, and have commanded platoons of them.
What happens to the career path of pilots when you don’t need to be a sterling physical specimen and an officer? Anyone with the right skills can pilot a UAV - be that a junior enlisted or a senior officer.
Anvesh Sharma on October 2, 2008 at 9:39 pm: 5
iam an IITian fom India…i wanna make a toy aircraft for the incoming ‘techfest’ in my college….can you please provide me with the detailed theory of how to make toy aircrafts….my age is 17 and my email-id is …..anvesh_25@yahoo.co.in……..
kindly Help me ’sir’…..!!
Yours sincerely,
anvesh sharma