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

I get the impression is that the overall principle is that limiting what changes you need to make is critical. If someone wants it to be VTOL, then cut them loose and let them go it alone on that. Generally, design creep is death, and design for three services will guarantee it, so start where you want to go.

hushkit.net

Bill Sweetman shares 10 ways GCAP can avoid the hell of the F-35 project with little or no effort​

You hear a lot of “the Global Combat Air Programme’s going to cost just as much and take as long as the F-35 has, so why bother?” Based on the work I did for TRILLION DOLLAR TRAINWRECK (now availab…
hushkit.net
hushkit.net
 
One way of looking at the whole picture:

The JSF program was designed to remake the U.S. military aircraft industry (and defense, of which it was the largest part) in a form that was sustainable in the post Cold War era, as it was seen in the 1990s. Hence the following elements of the strategy:
- One common aircraft, to reduce cost and force mergers, for the USAF, USN, USMC and export - "quad-common"
- Stealth to differentiate it from current generation aircraft
- Low cost to blow away all export competitors

What happened, however:
- Stealth plus quad-common was impossible within timeframe and cost (R&D, procurement, sustainment)
- Single design meant that there was no Plan B
- Mergers, forming megaprimes, and "competimate" relationships among defense companies, nuked what was little competition there was.
 
LowObservable said:
One way of looking at the whole picture:

The JSF program was designed to remake the U.S. military aircraft industry (and defense, of which it was the largest part) in a form that was sustainable in the post Cold War era, as it was seen in the 1990s. Hence the following elements of the strategy:
- One common aircraft, to reduce cost and force mergers, for the USAF, USN, USMC and export - "quad-common"
- Stealth to differentiate it from current generation aircraft
- Low cost to blow away all export competitors

What happened, however:
- Stealth plus quad-common was impossible within timeframe and cost (R&D, procurement, sustainment)
- Single design meant that there was no Plan B
- Mergers, forming megaprimes, and "competimate" relationships among defense companies, nuked what was little competition there was.
Click to expand...

So, monopoly control and higher profits were the answers? Forced mergers? Investors, not people who actually know something, take over. For more profits. Unsustainable? Does that mean technology or just more profits? I suspect the latter.

Once the cow gets milked to death, leave the carcass by the side of the road.

Perhaps a bit more scholarly reply goes like this: Closed door meetings at the Department of Defense to decide what to do now that a major enemy has left the field. Although this is slightly less worse than a nuclear war, a defense industry that was put in place in the late 1940s has to be dismantled in some kind of orderly fashion. The sharks/investors begin to swarm and contact their contacts in defense. The defense industry is set upon and those who are trying to formulate reasonable plans are run over by a massive stampede of investors who >demand< to be heard. This is the takeover opportunity of a lifetime. Those on the technology side are greatly hindered by a mostly organized group of investors who insert themselves into the decision-making process.

I suggest looking into a think tank formed in 1997, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Someone had to look out for and plan America's future. The final plan would insure American global dominance for the next 100 years.
 
LowObservable said:
- One common aircraft, to reduce cost and force mergers, for the USAF, USN, USMC and export - "quad-common"
- Stealth to differentiate it from current generation aircraft
- Low cost to blow away all export competitors
Click to expand...
The programme did largely succeed with all three of those points. But there are also multiple downsides as you note.

At the same time then it's difficult to see any clearly better alternative course of action across all metrics.
 
sferrin said:
It's so terrible it "won every export sales battle that it has engaged in". Imagine how terrible the losers must be. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

We could have a much more informed discussion if you read the 2000 words on the issue in the book, rather than making the point I already made in the flyer.

export.jpg
 
LowObservable said:
We could have a much more informed discussion if you read the 2000 words on the issue in the book, rather than making the point I already made in the flyer.

View attachment 732557
Click to expand...
Nor is any other govt with an aviation industry. The helpless Euros vs the American Godzillas got old when it was new. Aren’t they all united over there to make sure the US knows its place? “Just send over everything & everyone you have in case someone big messes with us and when it’s over go away and don’t sell to our markets.”
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Nor is any other govt with an aviation industry. The helpless Euros vs the American Godzillas got old when it was new. Aren’t they all united over there to make sure the US knows its place? “Just send over everything & everyone you have in case someone big messes with us and when it’s over go away and don’t sell to our markets.”
Click to expand...
Europe has more people and a bigger GDP than the US. For them to keep on like this is, well, kinda pathetic. They have three fighters they could offer in competition to the F-35. Surely at least one of them would win something.
 
Europe has more people and a bigger GDP than the US. For them to keep on like this is, well, kinda pathetic. They have three fighters they could offer in competition to the F-35. Surely at least one of them would win something.
Click to expand...

The Rafale is doing quite well, thank you.

Of course Dassault 36 airframe per year is a little light, when compared to Lockheed's 156. Then again, what's the point in producing 156 F-35s a year if the TR-3 upgrade becomes such a colossal bottleneck ?
www.forbes.com

The Dealer Lot Is Full - Where Is Lockheed Martin Storing F-35s?

With F-35 deliveries to the U.S. military halted since last July and F-35 production continuing apace, stealth fighters are stacking up on a ramp somewhere.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
sferrin said:
It's so terrible it "won every export sales battle that it has engaged in". Imagine how terrible the losers must be. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

This is like saying

I see Priuses on the road all the time. They must be awesome cars and everything else sucks.
 
sferrin said:
Europe has more people and a bigger GDP than the US. For them to keep on like this is, well, kinda pathetic. They have three fighters they could offer in competition to the F-35. Surely at least one of them would win something.
Click to expand...
The theory is that the “evil forces” (CIA, industry, you know, THE COMPLEX) shows up in some Euro politician’s home and, well… they get in line. There’s 2 competing mentalities there:
1. We in Europe don’t use our resources on atavistic tendencies, that’s America’s thing
2. We in Europe don’t need American trash products. Our stuff is superior if only we could build in sufficient numbers but that would interfere with Airbus airliners and, hey Airbus is good business, know what I mean?!

Sweden can easily go from producing 1 Gripen a month to 2.

There’s a 100 things wrong with the f-35 but bringing up the American boogeyman ain’t one of ‘em.
 
Archibald said:
The Rafale is doing quite well, thank you.

Of course Dassault 36 airframe per year is a little light, when compared to Lockheed's 156. Then again, what's the point in producing 156 F-35s a year if the TR-3 upgrade becomes such a colossal bottleneck ?
www.forbes.com

The Dealer Lot Is Full - Where Is Lockheed Martin Storing F-35s?

With F-35 deliveries to the U.S. military halted since last July and F-35 production continuing apace, stealth fighters are stacking up on a ramp somewhere.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
Euro leftists and rightists will cut off any massive aerospace defense infrastructure build up. But yes the American boogeyman still works.
 
Questions answered in the book. Although I must say that I did not address the fact that Europe has not had a single government for a few years, because I thought people knew that.

rome.jpg

In seriousness, Europe does present a united industrial front on commercial airframe integration, but is far from that in defense. And although people have often asserted that Europe should pull together, there are more institutional barriers than you could shake a stick at.
 
LowObservable said:
In seriousness, Europe does present a united industrial front on commercial airframe integration, but is far from that in defense.
Click to expand...
Going with the American Boogeyman theory.
So by say 2005, 40 yrs of Euro defense integration (aka stop the Americans), failed to…stop the Americans.
What did Napoleon say about allies again?

And Rome is lovely this time of year.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Going with the American Boogeyman theory.
Click to expand...
Does the U.S. exert more influence than any other nation (let alone Brussels) in defense matters?
Is that more important now than in more stable times?
Does the U.S. have industrial and operational motives to push the F-35?
Does it make a difference that U.S. influence is not divided between two aircraft (i.e. F-16 and F/A-18 days)?
 
Archibald said:
The Rafale is doing quite well, thank you.

Of course Dassault 36 airframe per year is a little light, when compared to Lockheed's 156. Then again, what's the point in producing 156 F-35s a year if the TR-3 upgrade becomes such a colossal bottleneck ?
Click to expand...
I think sferrin's point was that the Eurocanards (including the Rafale) have never won a competition against the F-35. Yes, Rafale is selling quite well but only to countries that dont have access to the F-35...
 
LowObservable said:
Does the U.S. exert more influence than any other nation (let alone Brussels) in defense matters?
Is that more important now than in more stable times?
Does the U.S. have industrial and operational motives to push the F-35?
Does it make a difference that U.S. influence is not divided between two aircraft (i.e. F-16 and F/A-18 days)?
Click to expand...
The same things said in 1954.

Mind you, I think the f-35 has a lot of problems.

It sounds like you’re mad at the US for Europe not having united its aerospace defense sector.
The enemy is Russia, right?

What investments in combat aircraft production has Europe made since 1991 or 1981 for that matter?
Trump acted like an asshole towards Europe since 2016. And?

Yes, tell America to fukk off. What could go wrong?
 
I'm not trying to change geopolitics, nor am I mad at anyone except liars and frauds. Just suggesting that people accept reality.
 
F-35 has a certain cachet that Rafale and Typhoon don't have - i.e. much is made of its LO characteristics and advanced avionics, something that neither of the 1980s designed European fighters have (they don't overtly 'look' stealthy and today as any fule kno, your stealth plane has to be an F-22/F-35 looking clone).
For some air forces they can't afford to hedge bets so buy what's billed as the most advanced fighter on the planet, they may only have a dozen but they are (on paper at least) the best money can buy and can be deployed with your NATO/US buddies without logistical worries.

Most buyers of F-35 are already locked into NATO or other bilateral US defence treaties, so there is no surprise that diplomatically it makes sense, most are already users of US weapons so there is no integration risk, most are already users of F-16s or F/A-18s, so again less perceived risk and corporate links are solid. Even those AFs that have older Mirages or Typhoons/Jags/Tornados have/had US kit like F-16s, there never was much exclusivity. Europe has MBDA but still isn't dominant in the arms market compared with the US (BAE Systems of course straddles both camps) and countries like South Korea, Turkey and UAE are ramping up their own arms efforts in a way we've not really seen before from 2nd-3rd tier military nations.

SAAB have always been niche, unless you were Denmark or Austria its likely you never heard of them pre-Gripen. Had they marketed it under a BAe label it might have sold better.

I don't see much tears from Europe regarding F-35, the UK and Italy jumped on the bandwagon pretty quickly and secured production shares. If anything Europe is riding two horses. If anything the real problem is that the Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen did nothing to dent the F-16's export performance because they were direct competitors - not the F-35 which is in a different league and is a distraction (indeed you could argue the phasing out of F-16 has opened the chances for Rafale and Typhoon as we've seen of late).

F-35 comes with a maintenance package deal - much like modern cars, you don't need to tinker yourself in the hangar or take it to your local backstreet guy to get it serviced (let's just hope the just in time replenishment doesn't screw up). In contrast BAE and Airbus offered competing support packages for Typhoon, BAE's seems to perform well, Airbus screwed theirs up. Dassault seems to do ok.

I still think that Tempest and SCAF will be too late to really do much against the F-35 market, but then most of the air forces who want stealthy 5/6 Gen will have already got F-35s (if they can), or attempt to build locally. It will be a repeat of the Typhoon/Rafale sideshow, a few orders in mixed fleets from those with deep pockets. I still would place bets that before either enters service in the 2040s that LM launches a refreshed new Block F-35 to rekindle export interest to hoover up repeat batch buys.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom