Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed out the US Air Force by Bill Sweetman

Status check on white whale: Beached, emitting bad smells, nobody quite sure what to do about it.

There are now how many brand-new, undeliverable aircraft in storage, and where?

Just a hint: some day I might write the WE NAME THE GUILTY MEN book about the F-35, but this isn't it. This is about why and how the current situation developed. (Note the cover quote.)

As for the current situation, I am not the one who said the fighter force was "geriatric" or that it was in "a death spiral". (No, POGO isn't the source either.) I do take a stab at the comforting myth that it has to do with inadequate funding.
 
LowObservable said:
Status check on white whale: Beached, emitting bad smells, nobody quite sure what to do about it.

There are now how many brand-new, undeliverable aircraft in storage, and where?

Just a hint: some day I might write the WE NAME THE GUILTY MEN book about the F-35, but this isn't it. This is about why and how the current situation developed. (Note the cover quote.)

As for the current situation, I am not the one who said the fighter force was "geriatric" or that it was in "a death spiral". (No, POGO isn't the source either.) I do take a stab at the comforting myth that it has to do with inadequate funding.
Click to expand...
Must be why everybody is lining up to buy them. Hell, even Germany is buying them and I'd have never guessed that.

While I might wish the A/C weren't constrained in length, without looping in the STOVL requirement there would be no F-35B and Italy, Japan, South Korea, the USMC and, oh yeah, the Royal Navy, would be up s--t creek. I think we're going to be glad those F-35Bs are around. (An F-35A, 8-10 feet longer, with a pair of F414 EPS would be nice. Would take some of the sting out of truncating the F-22 buy.)
 
Last edited:
Because obviously, seperate programs would have been far cheaper, releasing vast sums… or not.

I do wonder why these people get listened to, they have literally never done any of this: not flown, maintained, designed let alone managed complex air/defence programs and yet people buy their “if only” BS as if it was worth something more than fertiliser.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Because obviously, seperate programs would have been far cheaper, releasing vast sums… or not.

I do wonder why these people get listened to, they have literally never done any of this: not flown, maintained, designed let alone managed complex air/defence programs and yet people buy their “if only” BS as if it was worth something more than fertiliser.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be an aircraft designer or project manager to write a book about a particular aircraft.
 
sferrin said:
Must be why everybody is lining up to buy them. Hell, even Germany is buying them and I'd have never guessed that.

While I might wish the A/C weren't constrained in length, without looping in the STOVL requirement there would be no F-35B and Italy, Japan, South Korea, the USMC and, oh yeah, the Royal Navy, would be up s--t creek. I think we're going to be glad those F-35Bs are around. (An F-35A, 8-10 feet longer, with a pair of F414 EPS would be nice. Would take some of the sting out of truncating the F-22 buy.)
Click to expand...
First off, I think the F-35 aeronautical performance wise fills me with shoulder shrugs. Ain’t no F-22. Yes, I get that it’s avionics are supposed to more than make up for performance gaps assuming hard core F-35 fans will admit to any.

I think the issue is how much resources the overall program sucks up. After losing so many airframe manufacturers, the Peace Dividend, etc it’s the only game in town, like it or not. There is no Western alternative that can produce the necessary numbers.

We’re going to live or die with it. Like it or not.

How we ended up here I think extends beyond the plane itself.
 
edwest4 said:
You don't have to be an aircraft designer or project manager to write a book about a particular aircraft.
Click to expand...
Clearly. As lots of amateurs do just that.

A view that adds value is usually seen to come from some, ideally deep and/or broad, experience of doing what you are talking about. Else it is just hot air.

Self publishing a book complaining about F-35 having had precisely zero to do with it, or indeed, anything like it, is nothing but an ego trip and huge demonstration of self indulgence.

Sections of society’s penchant for people who gob off with no quals or experience base on which to base their shouting, is at the core of a lot of the west’s current problems.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
First off, I think the F-35 aeronautical performance wise fills me with shoulder shrugs. Ain’t no F-22. Yes, I get that it’s avionics are supposed to more than make up for performance gaps assuming hard core F-35 fans will admit to any.

I think the issue is how much resources the overall program sucks up. After losing so many airframe manufacturers, the Peace Dividend, etc it’s the only game in town, like it or not. There is no Western alternative that can produce the necessary numbers.

We’re going to live or die with it. Like it or not.

How we ended up here I think extends beyond the plane itself.
Click to expand...
Three custom aircraft would have cost even more. The STOVL one would have certainly been cancelled by now.
 
I don't go deeply into alternatives. However, as any fule kno, there were at the outset of the program two cases for STOVL: it allowed for a smaller and cheaper carrier and permitted off-runway operations.
By 2003, the U.K.'s logical operational research had concluded that a Forrestal-size carrier was needed, STOVL or not, to support enough F-4-size aircraft (which F-35 is) to perform concurrent defensive and offensive operations.
By 2010, it was clear that the F-35B could not VL except on a thermal-barrier-coated steel deck or a pad made from reinforced pizza-oven concrete.
 
Last edited:
Purpletrouble said:
Because obviously, seperate programs would have been far cheaper, releasing vast sums… or not.

I do wonder why these people get listened to, they have literally never done any of this: not flown, maintained, designed let alone managed complex air/defence programs and yet people buy their “if only” BS as if it was worth something more than fertiliser.
Click to expand...

Take this one up with the amateurs at RAND.

 
Last edited:
Purpletrouble said:
Clearly. As lots of amateurs do just that.

A view that adds value is usually seen to come from some, ideally deep and/or broad, experience of doing what you are talking about. Else it is just hot air.

Self publishing a book complaining about F-35 having had precisely zero to do with it, or indeed, anything like it, is nothing but an ego trip and huge demonstration of self indulgence.

Sections of society’s penchant for people who gob off with no quals or experience base on which to base their shouting, is at the core of a lot of the west’s current problems.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem. So... original. Never heard anything like it before.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Clearly. As lots of amateurs do just that.

A view that adds value is usually seen to come from some, ideally deep and/or broad, experience of doing what you are talking about. Else it is just hot air.

Self publishing a book complaining about F-35 having had precisely zero to do with it, or indeed, anything like it, is nothing but an ego trip and huge demonstration of self indulgence.

Sections of society’s penchant for people who gob off with no quals or experience base on which to base their shouting, is at the core of a lot of the west’s current problems.
Click to expand...

By your account, no one can write anything about aircraft programs. By your account, all books written about aircraft are by amateurs. I suggest not condemning an author before his book is released. Bill Sweetman contributed to Jane's, which is not an amateur operation.

The West is suffering under a biased media. All outlets just repeat all outlets. Actual 'investigative journalism' is fading. Perhaps it's considered too expensive in the eyes of the owners of media companies.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
First off, I think the F-35 aeronautical performance wise fills me with shoulder shrugs. Ain’t no F-22. Yes, I get that it’s avionics are supposed to more than make up for performance gaps assuming hard core F-35 fans will admit to any.

I think the issue is how much resources the overall program sucks up. After losing so many airframe manufacturers, the Peace Dividend, etc it’s the only game in town, like it or not. There is no Western alternative that can produce the necessary numbers.

We’re going to live or die with it. Like it or not.

How we ended up here I think extends beyond the plane itself.
Click to expand...
Because funding multiple programs and more manaufacturers would be even more expensive.

It’s not supposed to be an F22. Nor is it supposed to be a B2 or an orbiting satellite or a submarine. It’s an F16/A10/AV8/FA18 replacement.

And why the hate for its avionics - as if any alternative would be any different. This is a feature of the complexity of modern systems, not peculiar to F-35.

LowObservable said:
Argumentum ad hominem. So... original. Never heard anything like it before.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard a lot of amateurs talk BS for decades now, its never original. Of course we could just treat everyone as god but that’s generally not worked out well when tried.

edwest4 said:
By your account, no one can write anything about aircraft programs.
Click to expand...
Eh? That’s a jump. Of course they can. There are awesome books detailing the history of programs and so on - brilliantly compiled. They however focus their “opinions” on what those close to the program/aircraft experienced and what was recorded. That is different from unsubstantiated views from their own ego ala Sweetman.

edwest4 said:
By your account, all books written about aircraft are by amateurs.
Click to expand...
No idea how you come to that conclusion. Many authors have “lived it” has been my observation.
edwest4 said:
I suggest not condemning an author before his book is released. Bill Sweetman contributed to Jane's, which is not an amateur operation.
Click to expand...
Jane’s is a dictionary and a newspaper. Its very good.

What it isn’t, is insight into the why/why not of programs, noting also its data is generally pretty generic and not accurate in many critical cases (for obvs sy reasons).

edwest4 said:
The West is suffering under a biased media. All outlets just repeat all outlets. Actual 'investigative journalism' is fading. Perhaps it's considered too expensive in the eyes of the owners of media companies.
Click to expand...
It also seems to like people who shout they’ve got a radical message and the solution to our ills yet have no quals or experience to base that on.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Because funding multiple programs and more manaufacturers would be even more expensive.

It’s not supposed to be an F22. Nor is it supposed to be a B2 or an orbiting satellite or a submarine. It’s an F16/A10/AV8/FA18 replacement.

And why the hate for its avionics - as if any alternative would be any different. This is a feature of the complexity of modern systems, not peculiar to F-35.


I’ve heard a lot of amateurs talk BS for decades now, its never original. Of course we could just treat everyone as god but that’s generally not worked out well when tried.


Eh? That’s a jump. Of course they can. There are awesome books detailing the history of programs and so on - brilliantly compiled. They however focus their “opinions” on what those close to the program/aircraft experienced and what was recorded. That is different from unsubstantiated views from their own ego ala Sweetman.


No idea how you come to that conclusion. Many authors have “lived it” has been my observation.

Jane’s is a dictionary and a newspaper. Its very good.

What it isn’t, is insight into the why/why not of programs, noting also its data is generally pretty generic and not accurate in many critical cases (for obvs sy reasons).


It also seems to like people who shout they’ve got a radical message and the solution to our ills yet have no quals or experience to base that on.
Click to expand...
I do hope you reconsider some of your remarks. Emotion is not history. It's also bad form in general. It might be OK at the local pub but beyond that? No.
 
Purpletrouble said:
I do wonder why these people get listened to, they have literally never done any of this: not flown, maintained, designed let alone managed complex air/defence programs and yet people buy their “if only” BS as if it was worth something more than fertiliser.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a point.

To that point, why then should we listen to you as as you slag a book that you have not researched, written, edited, fact-checked and produced, let alone published or even read?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
View attachment 728337

Bill Sweetman has written a book on the F-35 to be available soon. Cover is preliminary. Self published book via Amazon Kindle KDP.

I can see this being... divisive :)
Click to expand...

I find it disappointing that Sweetman did not write a book about UFOs. That topic is less controversial and attracts fewer zealots.

Maybe next time. Nonetheless I look forward to reading the new book and forming my own opinions based on the content.
 
quellish said:
I find it disappointing that Sweetman did not write a book about UFOs. That topic is less controversial and attracts fewer zealots.

Maybe next time. Nonetheless I look forward to reading the new book and forming my own opinions based on the content.
Click to expand...
My zealous opinion is that the F-35 better perform well in its eventual use against a capable foe or there’ll be a lot of splaining to do.

Also its aeronautical performance makes the Super Hornet seem somewhat alive.
 
Sweetman's book will invite comparison with this one. I worked for Tom Burbage and he's a good man, but he works for Lockheed Martin so will obviously be biased.
 

Attachments

  • F-35.jpg
    F-35.jpg
    83.9 KB · Views: 31
It was a McNamara tier job imo. Should not have been a single overarching program. We essentially built the best damned jump jet on the planet but left with two other stealth strike platforms that though good still struggle with many issues. They are good because they are very stealthy and have insanely good avionics. But I dislike that some legit criticism of the program is even pretty fiercely attacked. I can understand the defensiveness because of all the disinfo and misinfo early on. Still it is a bit annoying.
 
gatoraptor said:
Sweetman's book will invite comparison with this one. I worked for Tom Burbage and he's a good man, but he works for Lockheed Martin so will obviously be biased.
Click to expand...

A few differences. I wrote it all myself. I don't share a publisher with RFK Jr's anti-vaxx rants, or with this work for the ages (I am not making this up).

1715301160217.png
 
TMA1 said:
It was a McNamara tier job imo. Should not have been a single overarching program. We essentially built the best damned jump jet on the planet but left with two other stealth strike platforms that though good still struggle with many issues. They are good because they are very stealthy and have insanely good avionics. But I dislike that some legit criticism of the program is even pretty fiercely attacked. I can understand the defensiveness because of all the disinfo and misinfo early on. Still it is a bit annoying.
Click to expand...
Commonality can save money. If you're Southwest Airlines it's tempting to fly all 737s. Military aviation's different.
 
sferrin said:
If the Harrier replacement was its own program do you think it would have survived?
Click to expand...

The bigger question, while off topic, is wether the Harrier needed replacing and wether the Marines really need organic fixed wing air for their mission.

And with that, was the F-35 worth it for that mission.

But this thread is about the book, which only one of us has read. Everyone has opinions about the subject of the book, those are best expressed elsewhere
 
sferrin said:
If the Harrier replacement was its own program do you think it would have survived?
Click to expand...
A Harrier III might have survived. A STOL solution might have emerged. If neither had happened, the world would not have ended. The RN could have put a hook on Typhoon or indeed Gripen, or bought the (pretty good IMHO) Rafale.

Taking your acceleration/deceleration hardware off your 60000 ton ship and putting it on all your airplanes. Is that a good trade?

Quellish is right. The Guadalcanal Myth has cost us dearly.
 
Is concurrency a terrible idea? Why yes it is. Was commonality proven to reduce costs? No it was not. Does Lockheed have a hellish Apple like draconian end user agreement that has the Air Force by the balls when it comes to sustainment? Yes, they do.

I'm sure the book will point out many more problems than this. The important questions are is the Air Force very cognizant of what the F35 program did to them? I think the answer is yes based upon comments they've made about NGAD and not making the same mistakes they did on F35.

The other question is what ongoing damage did the F35 program do to our acquisitions or defense posture. Those are the kind of questions I hope the book answers.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom