
F-35 Program Cutting Corners to “Complete” Development - tomkat0789
https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-cutting-corners-to-complete-development
======
sevensor
The biggest design problem is a failure of conception:

> The Pentagon sold Congress on the F-35 in part with the idea of creating a
> common aircraft for three services, alleging it would save money—despite the
> well-documented and glaring failure of the tri-service F-111 program 25
> years before Congress signed off on the very same plan with the F-35 in 2001

The idea that the STOVL variant would have significant parts commonality with
the others despite having a giant fan in the middle was pretty laughable right
from the start. In general, three aircraft with three very different design
mission profiles were not going to be able to share much without making bad
compromises.

~~~
Someone1234
Absolutely. And the depressing part is that SOME parts still could have been
shared between the different aircraft even in a more modest proposal (e.g.
warfare systems). They just decided to go that extra mile, and wind up with an
aircraft that likely won't ever save money and is too complex for its own
good.

I hope we're done with manned aircraft after the F-35, and it is all drone
swarms from here on out.

~~~
bertjk
I've thought that drone swarms are an "obviously" good idea, but that assumed
that the communications/navigation were not easily spoofed. Then Iran captured
one of the US's most advanced drone, pretty much intact. Now I'm not so sure.

~~~
Tobba_
The idea of drone swarms doesn't go well together with aerodynamics and basic
physical intuition. If you shrink an aircraft down, the aerodynamic cross-
section (i.e the drag force) scales with the area (scale^2), but your engine
thrust is going to drop roughly by the decrease in volume (scale^3).

So you end up losing maximum airspeed _and_ fuel efficiency (in terms of the
mass you're moving) the smaller you go. Unless the drones in your swarm were
really big, it doesn't work out.

Although, I imagine we'll see some smaller, unmanned jet fighters in the
future (assuming someone figures out how to control something like that
remotely, or autonomously). A smaller aircraft has the advantage of a smaller
radar cross-section and being more difficult to hit. Doing away with the pilot
cuts out a lot of weight and frees up room for a larger engine and fuel tank,
offseting the downsides of the smaller size somewhat. There should be a sweet
spot where that works out.

~~~
sawjet
Shape is the major determining factor for radar return, not size. From Ben
Rich's Skunk Works-

>I really wanted a photographer around for historical purposes to capture the
expression on Kelly’s big, brooding moon-shaped mug when I showed him the
electromagnetic chamber results. Hopeless Diamond was exactly as Denys had
predicted: a thousand times stealthier than the twelve-year-old drone. The
fact that the test results matched Denys’s computer calculations was the first
proof that we actually knew what in hell we were doing. Still, Kelly reacted
about as graciously as a cop realizing he had collared the wrong suspect. He
grudgingly flipped me the quarter and said, “Don’t spend it until you see the
damned thing fly.” But then he sent for Denys Overholser and grilled the poor
guy past the point of well-done on the whys and hows of stealth technology. He
told me later that he was surprised to learn that with flat surfaces the
amount of radar energy returning to the sender is independent of the target’s
size. A small airplane, a bomber, an aircraft carrier, all with the same
shape, will have identical radar cross sections. “By God, I never would have
believed that,” he confessed. I had the feeling that maybe he still didn’t.

~~~
trhway
>with flat surfaces the amount of radar energy returning to the sender is
independent of the target’s size.

it is basic geometry. Like a flat mirror, no matter the size, will reflect to
you the same Sun spotlight (to be precise - as long as the mirror is bigger
than 32 arcminutes as seen from the receiving position)

------
badrabbit
This is possibly the biggest and most tragic case of Sunk-cost fallacy:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost)

I honestly think the american defense contractor industry poses a national
security risk. In time of war,the country needs efficiency as much as
capability and how much cash you burn through(even if you just print more
money) can also decide who wins the war.

~~~
tomatotomato37
Real war (aka not fucking about in third world countries) does a really good
job of weeding out this kind of behavior, once the bad actor's own property
starts being targetted.

~~~
tabtab
In a real war you wouldn't have time to design a new replacement. Let's hope
the enemy has its own boondoggles.

~~~
jotm
I've always wondered why they don't reuse old frame designs with new materials
and components. They're proven to fly well, so why a completely new design
every damn time?

Russia seems to do it with the SUs and MiGs...

------
Nokinside
F-35 program is in large part complex software project but it's not just any
software project

\- it's a large software integration, sensor integration project with many
suppliers and interfaces

\- it includes incredibly advanced logistics, inventory, health and
maintenance software ALIS that is essential for the program's success. Without
ALIS F-35 can't keep readiness and availability needed

\- It's technically bleeding edge: augmented reality, mesh networking, ...
(bleeding edge is rarely painless)

\- almost everything is safety critical or at least mission critical.

The project has so much momentum and so much sunken cost that it may take a
decade to see if it can really deliver.

The ultimate test will be a high sortie rate mission that lasts few weeks.
Lockheed engineers (civilians) are now on site doing custom work and repairs
for individual parts to make the planes fly. If operational tempo increases,
it's likely that the system can't keep up.

~~~
ptero
Those are all nice words, but I doubt reality will resemble marketing.

First, it is already _old_ (first flight in 2006). Those sensors, augmented
reality, mesh networks and such are unlikely to be bleeding edge by now. We
may already have better options, but they probably cannot be swapped in
because safety, because it is such a complex mess and of course because
secrecy.

Second, successful aircraft (efficient, envelope pushing, not money guzzling)
are designed quickly by a relatively small team empowered to break barriers or
ignore red tape. Look for example at Skunk Works, their products and their
timeline. F-35 is opposite: a multi-national, multi-service monster with
bureaucracy, oversight and special interests that alone will drive good
engineers away.

Sorry, it is just a feeding trough. Let's finish what absolutely must be
finished and limit our losses before it acquires another zero in the total
price tag. My 2c.

------
stcredzero
_Several of these flaws, like the lack of any means for a pilot to confirm a
weapon’s target data before firing, and damage to the plane caused by the
tailhook on the Air Force’s variant, have potentially serious implications for
safety and combat effectiveness._

Tail hook? That 2nd one is pretty basic for a Navy carrier aircraft! Just how
bad is it?

Reading again and further, it's the Air Force plane, not the Navy plane:

 _Testers have also identified an issue with the arresting hook on the Air
Force’s F-35A conventional takeoff variant. The F-35A, like other Air Force
aircraft, is equipped with a single-use tailhook for emergency-landing
situations when the pilot suspects a braking failure. Testing on the F-35A’s
tailhook began in 2016. Testing engineers found that the arresting hook is
causing damage to the aircraft due to “up-swing.”_

It's a "just in case" piece of emergency equipment for emergencies. Not nearly
as serious. I wonder if this article is a bit of a hit piece?

~~~
strictnein
It really reads that way. Stuff like this makes me think it is:

> " F-35 test teams rated this a Category I “High” deficiency, but the Board
> downgraded it to Category II “High,” without any indication of whether plans
> exist to correct it."

So they're both "High" but one group thought it was Category I and the other
thought it was Category II? There's never been a disagreement about issue
severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure.

~~~
hguant
>There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any
development project, that's for sure.

Right, but take a look at the groups doing the categorization. The team that
rated the issue Category I was the actual QA testing team, made up of
engineers and aviators. The Board that downgraded it was made up of managers
and bureaucrats, the majority of which, according to the article at least,
have a vested interest in the process rather than the result. This reads to me
as a Dilbert comic.

Engineer: "We tested the product. It has these 111 critical defects, any one
of which can destroy the product, or the user. These need to be fixed as soon
as possible"

PHB: "Would you call these fixes an upgrade to the current system?"

Engineer: "Yes, in that it would upgrade the product to "not death to look at"

PHB: _Downgrades issue_ "Perfect. So we can fix it after we ship and charge an
extra 40% as part of our exclusive upgrades contract"

------
rrggrr
The only difference between the F-35 program and the Fed's quantitative easing
programs is that the F-35 program provided significant benefit to main street
businesses and households. In all other respects both policies were designed
to protect companies deemed too big to fail.

Boeing had the better solution for the next generation fighter, but LM had the
greater need and its interests prevailed.

~~~
gnu8
The F-35 project is (so far) the ultimate expression of our permanent war
economy which has propped up the United States since the end of world war 2.
As such it is no less misguided than QE since the object of this type of
military spending is to consume excess production.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies,
in a final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are
cold and not clothed.”

~~~
gazsp
Who's the quote from?

~~~
Someone1234
Dwight D. Eisenhower

~~~
twunde
I believe it's from Eisenhower's "Chance for Peace" speech, one of his two
major speeches against military spending. The other major speech was his
farewell address, where he discussed the military industrial complex. If
anyone's interested, I'd highly suggest watching Why We Fight, a documentary
from 2005

------
aurailious
This program is going to end up like the M-16. Even after its flaws are fixed
the reputation isn't going to be shaken off. People still see the M-16 as
unreliable even as its the most common form factor used by militaries today.
Ironically the AK-47 wasn't as reliable in its initial iterations and now its
simplicity is its only major advantage today.

Currently a lot of the flaws of the F-35 program have been fixed. Even the
cost per fighter is reasonable now, its approaching a sub $100M cost per
aircraft. Its a much better plane than its contemporaries, and its costs are
in the same category.

Designing an advanced fighter aircraft in the 21st century is hard and
expensive. Designing one to do 3 roles and built in the thousands is even
harder. But its easier and cheaper than the alternatives. The F-35 is going to
end up being a good aircraft and will fulfill what it was designed to do.

~~~
stupidcar
Sorry, I don't follow miltech stuff very closely. Which of its alternatives
have cost more than $1.5 trillion?

~~~
aurailious
Each F-35 costs about $100M now. When you want to compare the entire project
scope, you should also account for how many planes have been planned to build.
Because that $1.5T number includes purchases and lifetime expenses. About 3000
planes and decades of use.

Strictly measuring the R&D places the program at $50B. A price tag that
includes making virtually 3 kinds of planes for more than a dozen operators.

So when you say its cost $1.5T, then try to point to alternatives, I'd have to
ask, which other alternative planes have had 3000 constructed and then
operated over the course of its life in the past 2 decades? What exactly are
you trying to compare that $1.5T number to?

Do you want to compare this to the Rafale, of which there are only 150?

To use a metaphor:

I went out and bought 10 bags of apples for $100, but that guy only needed to
spend $10 for his bag of oranges.

~~~
greedo
The most current lot was $89M per aircraft.

~~~
engi_nerd
True, but that's only for the F-35A. The other two variants are more expensive
per copy due to their lower production numbers.

------
jakelarkin
F35 isn't so much a fighter jet as it is a political graft and jobs program,
and in that light it's a smashing success.

~~~
godzillabrennus
Military industrial complex for the win.

In all seriousness, at least they aren’t putting more peaceful drug users in
prison to make their money.

That’s a much bigger problem IMHO than overspending on an obsolete airplane.

~~~
DanBC
That money being spent on the obsolete plane could instead be providing
evidence based drug treatment, instead of letting people fall victim to the
abstinence-based rehab schemes.

------
a2tech
Are we surprised? This project has been a giant boondoggle for over a
decade(!)

~~~
torstenvl
At least it's not two decades with fake tests, like the Bradley.

~~~
Someone1234
It lost in an air to air trial to an older aircraft, and they covered it up.
Are you sure?

~~~
engi_nerd
That wasn't a trial of air-to-air combat. It was a control law test of the
F-35. An F-16 aircraft, which was already being used during the mission as a
"chase" aircraft for test execution safety reasons, was also used by the F-35
pilot as a visual reference.

There was no coverup. Rather, the reporter who was sent the document and wrote
about it simply didn't have the engineering knowledge to understand what he
was reading, nor did he ask anyone experienced with flight testing to review
what he had been sent and what he had written.

~~~
Someone1234
The document was the opinion of the F-35 pilot just to be clear. Here's a
direct quote from the pilot:

> The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see
> behind the aircraft. There are multiple occasions when the bandit would've
> been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a
> position to see him

#

> The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and
> operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime.

The original documents can be read here:

[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-
the-f-35-...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-
the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb)

Perhaps you're going to claim the pilot themselves aren't qualified to
criticize the program either?

PS - This resulted in mechanical changes to the aircraft as well as changes to
the headset resulting in millions more in expenditure.

~~~
engi_nerd
I think you are making some of the same mistakes as the author of the piece
you linked to. You are not understanding the context of the whole test, nor
are you reading all of the pilot's observations.

Look at what the pilot says about pitch rate, and I'll pick out the part that
makes all the difference. Brackets and emphasis mine:

"Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. Energy deficit to the
bandit would increase over time. Therefore there were multiple occasions where
it would have been tactically sound to accept excessive energy loss in order
to achieve a fleeting WEZ. [Weapon Engagement Zone]. _The CLAW [Control Law]
prevented such shot opportunities (and hindered defeating shots)_."

In other words, the control laws prevented him from doing what he wanted. But,
as he knows, because he's helped develop the aircraft, the control laws are
trying to be conservative. Therefore, in his conclusions and recommendations,
he says:

"Consider increasing alpha onset." and "Consider increasing pilot yaw rate
control authority".

These fixes were put in the CLAW really quickly.

As for your jab about "pilots themselves aren't qualified to criticize the
program either", well, look, the reporter didn't do his due diligence. You can
criticize anything you like, but when you don't do the work to make your
criticisms informed by relevant experience and knowledge, you're just another
guy with an opinion and a blog.

~~~
Someone1234
> But, as he knows, because he's helped develop the aircraft, the control laws
> are trying to be conservative.

And are based on the physical construction of the aircraft, which is why they
increased the size of the control surfaces after this.

> You can criticize anything you like, but when you don't do the work to make
> your criticisms informed by relevant experience and knowledge, you're just
> another guy with an opinion and a blog.

According to you nobody that criticizes the F-35 sacred cow does their due
diligence. You paint people one of two ways: You either think the F-35 is
wonderful and thus are informed, or you don't know anything.

I also love how you keep going back to an article that isn't even relevant in
this thread, nobody brought it up, nobody has linked it, and yet you're
strawman-ing this mysterious article to death as a defense of the pilot's own
criticism's of the F-35 in 2015.

~~~
engi_nerd
The size of the control surfaces was NOT changed after the report that you
linked to. Where do you even get this misinformation?

You yourself linked the article that I'm referring to, and you mentioned it
originally.

And I am informed on the F-35 and don't think it's wonderful, but I don't
think it's a horrible piece of garbage, either.

~~~
Someone1234
> You yourself linked the article that I'm referring to, and you mentioned it
> originally.

I haven't linked to any article like what you're referring to, nor did I
reference it. I linked to the pilot's original mission report, I also
referenced the same report. You seem to be attacking some editorial, and since
you haven't linked it, nobody knows which one.

> And I am informed on the F-35 and don't think it's wonderful, but I don't
> think it's a horrible piece of garbage, either.

Nobody was claiming it was a "horrible piece of garbage."

~~~
engi_nerd
[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-
the-f-35-...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-
the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb)

You linked to this yourself.

~~~
Someone1234
Exactly. Which is nothing but the pilot's report un-editorialized. You've been
attacking some strawman editorial all throughout this thread that nobody
linked or referenced here.

~~~
engi_nerd
I've been replying to you, not attacking some strawman editorial, as you put
it.

David Axe, the guy you linked to, has a long history of misunderstanding the
F-35, like also, this piece.

[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-
the-f-35-...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-
t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875)

You described that this was "covered up". You would have only gotten that idea
if you read the piece I just linked to.

~~~
Someone1234
Glad you finally linked it, that only took almost ten posts.

But no, I've never read that.

------
ocschwar
The F-35 will be complete when the enemy says it's complete.

------
_verandaguy
90% complete, 90% to go

------
kelvin0
"...Officials in the F-35 Joint Program Office are making paper
reclassifications of potentially life-threatening design flaws to make them
appear less serious..."

Hey this must be the company where I used to work a while ago. QA finds a
'crash' enter it as 'showstopper' in BUG database. As time goes by PM slowly
'erodes' it to 'Major', then a few months later it's closed as 'will not fix'.

------
browsercoin
The F-35 initiatives for a "one platform for all branches" mirrors the F-4
Phantom and McNamara's push for standardized platform to emphasize on a
perceived technologically advantage-guided missiles that made dogfighting
rebundant....

We all know that played out in vietnam....

Now they are saying it's okay if the F-35 is beta, nobody can detect our
stealth planes!

Like the unshootable Nighthawk stealth bomber in Belgrade that was taken out
by a SAM. Of course the f-22 has no equal but I wonder just how much this
stealth edge is going to last.

Somewhere someone is sitting on a slush fund to figure out (or have figured
out already) how to detect stealth and counter measures.

------
Bucephalus355
The F-35 has been a huge success for China. We funded everything, made every
mistake in the book, and now the PLA can pick and choose the parts they like
best and fold into their own, perhaps better working, model.

------
lbriner
Very scary but also a reminder of the high cost of politics and agreements and
strong personailities and "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't"

I was reading earlier about the UK saying they were going to buy 150 of them
at $100M a pop. Probably already signed the agreement and then will get the
shock of the service pricing and the idea that once you have it, it costs you
more to mothball and replace than to keep paying good money after bad.

Shudder.

~~~
arethuza
Wouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't in the process of completing two
carriers that can only be used with the F-35B as they don't have CATOBAR
capabilities - so far that's over $10 billion just on the ships.

~~~
rjsw
We don't want CATOBAR, using STOV(R)L aircraft is cheaper in the long run.

~~~
greedo
CATOBAR is far better in the long run. You can take off with more
weapons/fuel, and bring back more of both instead of dumping them. The RN made
a huge mistake in not putting in catapults and arresting gear.

~~~
rjsw
Nope. You need to keep much more fuel in reserve if doing arrested landings
compared to vertical ones. You probably also need airborne refuelling provided
from the carrier.

Another extra cost comes from needing to keep practicing landings, plus
trainers like the T-50 to learn how to do them. There is more chance of losing
an aircraft in a landing accident too. Not needing to keep practicing landings
means that the mix of F-35s and helicopters can be changed at short notice.

~~~
arethuza
Actually, my main concern is the risk created by coupling one very and
expensive project (the carriers) to the design of a particular model of new
aircraft.

At least with CATOBAR there is the option of falling back to other designs.

~~~
greedo
Correct. Harriers are out of service for the RN/RAF, and good they should be.
The French were prudent in using CATOBAR with their carriers. They get the
advantage of Rafale, F-18, E2, etc etc. Plus they wisely chose nuclear power.

------
dmh2000
The article left out the part about the lightning rods :
[https://www.businessinsider.com/marines-order-lightning-
rods...](https://www.businessinsider.com/marines-order-lightning-rods-to-keep-
their-f-35s-from-getting-fried-2018-8)

------
ben_utzer
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Defense)

------
logfromblammo
Oh... they're just _now_ cutting corners? I think the problem may have been
they added too many stupid corners to begin with.

------
paulsutter
Maybe it is time to declare victory and move on. Except, they have no apparent
plans to move on to something more sensible.

------
village-idiot
What's the worst that can happen?

~~~
astrodust
War breaks out.

Divide by zero error.

Air supremacy handed to enemy.

~~~
cpeterso
Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority" depicts what can happen in an
arms race if one side never stops racing to introduce new technology:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_\(short_story\))

[http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html](http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html)

~~~
yourapostasy
Never get tired of re-reading that short story.

The story also re-stipulates the quote very likely misattributed to Stalin,
but likely is from Thomas A. Callaghan Jr.:

    
    
      Quantity has a quality all its own.
    

While provenance of the quote is tricky [1] [2], it is generally accepted the
US leans towards the "quality" side of the spectrum. This shouldn't be an
issue with the purported ideals of the US, unless the US finds itself
precipitating a hot war by the MIC and neo-conservative foreign policy
establishments with a numerically superior foe.

I'm personally for a "tick-tock" release schedule into a Swiss defensive
posture: ratchet up quality in one period, then in the next period distribute
the quality gains into a massive materiel and training dispersal program
focused on defense of the nation's land itself.

[1]
[https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&old...](https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&oldid=1993027#Misattributed)

[2] [https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Quantity-has-a-quality-all-
it...](https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own)

------
ex-pralite-monk
There are problems and complaints with every weapon system: the P-51 Mustang
was designed for high-altitude bomber escort but the original engine couldn't
produce power > 15k feet. Oops. The British put a Rolls Royce engine in it and
it was gold.

------
batbomb
gotta get that sprint burnt down

------
scottlocklin
My favorite F35 hack: just buy whatever the latest out of Sukhoi is. It will
be cheaper and work better, and we can afford more of them than the Russians
can.

Hey, we do it for everything else!

~~~
strictnein
Perfect plan, if you want a good plane for target practice for the F-22 and
F-35. Or if you need to test your radar systems against something and you
can't find a Piper Cub.

[https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-
aircra...](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-
rcs.htm)

~~~
scottlocklin
Has the US ever managed to shoot down even an old Su-27? Guessing the answer
is no. F22 might do it. F35, only in a beyond visual situation. Remember in
Vietnam when the doctrine was that missiles were so good all combat would
happen BVR? Yeah, it's not gonna happen now either.

~~~
strictnein
Are you serious right now? An F-22 "might" take out an Su-27? And the F-35
just simply wouldn't?

This isn't 1968. That was 50 years ago. Things have changed ever so slightly.
Your knowledge of things seems to extend little past lines in Top Gun.

~~~
scottlocklin
I've written extensively on the topic, under my real name even. Pierre Sprey,
one of the fighter mafia guys who came up with our Gen-4 fighters agrees with
me. Who are you?

------
madeuptempacct
At the end of the day, they are going to put all the fancy gizmos on the more
capable platform - the F-22, while keeping its more powerful radar. There is
going to be an F-22E that will be able to deliver more ordinance than the
F-35. There is going is going to be an F-22x which will get the F-35s IRST so
that it can get around without emitting. Or maybe this will be a pod to avoid
compromising stealth. Oh, and the A-10 isn't going anywhere.

~~~
HappyRobot
Do you have a source on the F-22 variants? I thought that one of the things
that locked us into the F-35 was the tear down of the F-22 production line.
Can we still make F-22's?

~~~
engi_nerd
We cannot make an F-22 right now. A few years ago, Lockheed Martin was asked
how much they thought it would cost to restart F-22 production. The cost was
several billion dollars. Plus, the people with the intimate knowledge of how
to build an F-22 are dispersed throughout the rest of the industry, retired,
or deceased.

