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

[edwest4]

That's why I have a team that is very good at producing books.

Chris

I work with a similar team. If we were not very good then we would not still be in business..

 

[edwest4]

Really! Not a pilot, not an engineer, never held a security clearance, and calls himself the world's leading U-2 export. Da noive!

Crossed fingers, but KDP was reasonably easy to use. They produce proof copies for ~$6 and they arrive very quickly. I looked at my first one and saw that I got the margins wrong, corrected that and made other changes, and ordered a second proof. You don't get anything like that from a conventional publisher. Plus, for low-volume books, you get zero advertising and promotion anyway. If you're going to do it yourself you might as well get the benefit.

I pitched a full-size book (100k-plus words, fully illustrated) at a conventional publisher a few months ago. They offered me a $3k advance. That's not business, that's The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

If this project works I will gladly provide some of my lessons learned on this forum.

You get everything like that from a conventional publisher. I approved a book layout a few days ago and was asked for input about a book cover design yesterday. If people don't like an offer from a "conventional" publisher then they can publish a book themselves just like they could 40 years ago.

I think people forget that the reputation of a conventional publisher matters. If I see a new book from a publisher that I know produces quality then I will consider that book before I consider a book produced by someone I've not heard of or a self-published book.

 

[martinbayer]

Martin,

Do you think those without degrees in aerospace can research a subject and produce a good book about it?

Absolutely - my whole point is that Scott is *NOT* an example for that, and therefore invoking him does not support/further the argument.

 

[edwest4]

Absolutely - my whole point is that Scott is *NOT* an example for that, and therefore invoking him does not support/further the argument.

I understand. Thank you.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Scott Lowther has been doing it for years and nobody was upset about it.

And if anyone thinks otherwise, it would be better not to say so here.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Absolutely - my whole point is that Scott is *NOT* an example for that, and therefore invoking him does not support/further the argument.

It depends on the definition of a good book. Good technical book: "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945" by Antony L. Kay. Good historical book: "Le Focke Wulf Fw 190" by Jean-Yves Lorant and Jean-Bernard Frappé. Good fiction book: "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy.

 

[edwest4]

It depends on the definition of a good book. Good technical book: "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945" by Antony L. Kay. Good historical book: "Le Focke Wulf Fw 190" by Jean-Yves Lorant and Jean-Bernard Frappé. Good fiction book: "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy.

I think here the focus is on a good book about a technical subject.

 

[LowObservable]

Thing is, the aerospace enterprise is complex. It requires a lot of experts in very different disciplines and leader-director-managers who can get them all working in coordination.
Nobody is an expert in everything, by definition.
So if you want to work out why something happened (whether Arrow, TSR.2, or F-35), the most qualified people in each area can't necessarily put that picture together better than anyone else.
That's where historians and other story-writers come in.

 

[edwest4]

Thing is, the aerospace enterprise is complex. It requires a lot of experts in very different disciplines and leader-director-managers who can get them all working in coordination.
Nobody is an expert in everything, by definition.
So if you want to work out why something happened (whether Arrow, TSR.2, or F-35), the most qualified people in each area can't necessarily put that picture together better than anyone else.
That's where historians and other story-writers come in.

Is story writers the right term? I mean books about technical subjects that are easy for the average person to read have always been a selling point.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Hits in the heart.

And let us remember the justifications for the truncation of F-22, to wit: China would have no LO aircraft in 2020 and a handful in 2025, and the F-35 would be available soon, almost as capable, and half the cost. (Gates 2009, Chicago and Fort Worth.)

And who was quite happy to lose 150 F-22s if it bolstered the case for 3,000 F-35s? LockMart's favorite think-tank proprietor, that's who.

"Reports of a potential delay in the program due to technical challenges appear to be groundless [O rly? - Ed.] , and F-35 really is central to future joint warfighting plans in a way that the more expensive F-22 fighter was not."

And as anyone with half a brain could tell at the time, the F-35 was far from healthy. But that was all the more reason to kill off any alternatives.

We knew what China was working on when these decisions were made, money in the pocket goes a long way in ignoring national security.

 

[Justo Miranda]

We knew what China was working on when these decisions were made, money in the pocket goes a long way in ignoring national security.

China has too many internal problems trying to prevent implosion, in my opinion any expansionist strategy should serve to hide its weaknesses.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Is story writers the right term? I mean books about technical subjects that are easy for the average person to read have always been a selling point.

In my opinion, good technical books are very boring and popular technical books usually contain numerous inaccuracies because to make them enjoyable the author must take a lot of licenses. The middle ground between the two tendencies would be a book written by a good storyteller containing the result of numerous personal interviews conducted with the technicians who worked on the plane after being processed by an intelligent and experienced mind on a wide range of readers. I couldn't do it, because I'm just an information gatherer, but there are really good guys who know what they're doing.

 

[martinbayer]

Thing is, the aerospace enterprise is complex. It requires a lot of experts in very different disciplines and leader-director-managers who can get them all working in coordination.
Nobody is an expert in everything, by definition.
So if you want to work out why something happened (whether Arrow, TSR.2, or F-35), the most qualified people in each area can't necessarily put that picture together better than anyone else.
That's where historians and other story-writers come in.

Insider insight and first hand knowledge always beats outside analysis/conjecture, but it takes a good, objective/independent scribe to first establish a record of diverse recollections from which they or more or less creative writers may then attempt to formulate "history".

 

[Hood]

Being a technical expert is no good if you don't know how to research, interrogate and investigate source materials and interpret them and use them to build a narrative.

Surprisingly few historians are technical experts (academic historians tend to despise technical stuff - I once heard one disparage the technical Spitfire Vs Bf 109 issues as being irrelevant to Battle of Britain history) and surprisingly few technical experts and aviation writers are trained historians.

 

[CJGibson]

Academics tend to ignore maps, diagrams and photos in their papers and when images are included, they are always too small, to such an extent that they are pointless.

I have done one 'academic' paper ever. After being asked to supply footnotes that explained things that eny fule kno, it was published without images! I was livid, as this made the paper complete cobblers as the editor had failed to remove 'See diagram XX', but readers did have an explanation in the footnotes about what a SAM is.

Chris

PS I'm a geologist, so what would I know about anything. Where's my Chubbi-Stumps?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Academics tend to ignore maps, diagrams and photos in their papers and when images are included, they are always too small, to such an extent that they are pointless.

I have done one 'academic' paper ever. After being asked to supply footnotes that explained things that eny fule kno, it was published without images! I was livid, as this made the paper complete cobblers as the editor had failed to remove 'See diagram XX', but readers did have an explanation in the footnotes about what a SAM is.

Chris

PS I'm a geologist, so what would I know about anything. Where's my Chubbi-Stumps?

You made me look up Chubbi-Stumps - learned something new!

Now where are my Crayolas?! Mark

 

[Arjen]

Chris and I would both dispute the frankly ludicrous idea that only people with aviation industry experience can write worthwhile books on aircraft. Its like saying only combatants in WW2 can write a history of WW2.

People will be upset over someone criticising their pet project/favourite tipple/football team, especially so if criticism is supported by consistent reasoning.

Denial - anger - bargaining - depression - acceptance

 

[In_A_Dream]

China has too many internal problems trying to prevent implosion, in my opinion any expansionist strategy should serve to hide its weaknesses.

I was referencing a world that existed 2-3 decades ago when a lot of things went overlooked to bolster the US-China trade relationship.

 

[edwest4]

Insider insight and first hand knowledge always beats outside analysis/conjecture, but it takes a good, objective/independent scribe to first establish a record of diverse recollections from which they or more or less creative writers may then attempt to formulate "history".

Martin,

That is not how its done. Once the documents are collected, they are written in a way that flows. That tells what actually happened without bias. Without input from the author. History books are not about the author. A well written history book tells what really happened in a way that is clear to the reader, whether he is another historian or an average person.

 

[edwest4]

I was referencing a world that existed 2-3 decades ago when a lot of things went overlooked to bolster the US-China trade relationship.

What things "went overlooked"?

 

[LowObservable]

Insider insight and first hand knowledge always beats outside analysis/conjecture, but it takes a good, objective/independent scribe to first establish a record of diverse recollections from which they or more or less creative writers may then attempt to formulate "history".

What I learned over 50 years of writing was that any one insider will write from their own perspective. A journalist or historian has to fuse multiple perspectives, from pure technologists, through technology managers, to operators. The history of almost almost any aircraft program involves multiple technologies, engineering and design to integrate them, and management, politics, and economics.
Something else that I learned watching engineers and pilots learn journalism was that their prior knowledge retained its value, at best. I just checked Bill Gunston's bio, and I'd wager that what he studied before 1951 at Northampton Engineering College was of only so much use in writing about the Vigilante or the Valkyrie.

 

[In_A_Dream]

What things "went overlooked"?

It's a fairly deep topic that would go well beyond the discussion in this thread, but to keep it short, the United States engaged in extensive dual-use tech transfers with the PRC over the course of their relationship, as well as opened up vulnerabilities in its supply chains by having material and component sourcing relocated overseas. US defense & intelligence analysts also went ignored regarding China's military development because politically, the development of the US-China trade relationship was a bigger priority for the United States.

 

[edwest4]

It's a fairly deep topic that would go well beyond the discussion in this thread, but to keep it short, the United States engaged in extensive dual-use tech transfers with the PRC over the course of their relationship, as well as opened up vulnerabilities in its supply chains by having material and component sourcing relocated overseas. US defense & intelligence analysts also went ignored regarding China's military development because politically, the development of the US-China trade relationship was a bigger priority for the United States.

Briefly. Politically what? Billionaires want more money. The way to get that is to get cheap labor and materials in China. The military bought into the idea to cut costs. There was no politics, just a desire to make a buck and cut costs. Then someone said, OK, this has to stop, at least for the military. Meanwhile, I regularly see cargo containers stacked two high on railroad flatcars that are from China which translates into bigger profits for billionaires.

 

[LowObservable]

Everyone who ever defended this program, delete all your accounts. Good grief, what did you help happen?

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106909.pdf

 

[sferrin]

Everyone who ever defended this program, delete all your accounts. Good grief, what did you help happen?

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106909.pdf

The best fighter in production on the planet. That's what we helped happen.

 

[LowObservable]

You read that in one minute. Confriggingrats

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, to be fair, it wasn't a very long post.

 

[LowObservable]

Well, to be fair, it wasn't a very long post.

snort

just as well I'm not ****ing pi**ed-off as hell right now

 

[sferrin]

You read that in one minute. Confriggingrats

View attachment 729136

Is there something, anything, in that report that is going to refute what I said? No?

 

[sublight_]

The best fighter in production on the planet. That's what we helped happen.

Only because it ate up all the money for building anything else. It even ate up the money that was going to build more F-22's..... But is it REALLY in "production" if the buyer has stopped accepting them since last July?

They started building these 17 years ago and we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the program didn't continue to be a stinker.

 

[LowObservable]

Is there something, anything, in that report that is going to refute what I said? No?

errm you don't know until you read it....

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

snort

just as well I'm not ****ing pi**ed-off as hell right now

You were expecting people to read the linked report before responding? How old-fashioned

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Its possible for the F-35 to be "the best fighter in production on the planet" and still be a textbook case in how NOT to procure a new fighter.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The best fighter in production on the planet. That's what we helped happen.

It certainly helps when you eat the budget for the best fighter ever designed on the planet, tbf. Pratt's engine issues are cosmic irony.

 

[Elysium]

The best fighter in production on the planet. That's what we helped happen.

I think the reason this argument is divisive, is it's essentially two arguments packed into one (and a bonus one), which have opposing answers:

• Does the US possess the highest level of technology and is it present in the F35: I'd argue the answer is yes
• Given that level of technology, was building a single airframe, the F-35, the best decision: I'd argue the answer is no.

And the bonus question:

• Given the needs of a small to mid-sized US-aligned country that can't afford to operate a large or complex airforce, is the F-35 the best: I'd say that it's quite close to optimal, with most of the shortcomings coming not from the plane itself, but the attached political and economic strings.

 

[sferrin]

Only because it ate up all the money for building anything else. It even ate up the money that was going to build more F-22's.....

Any F-16/F/A-18/Harrier replacements would have done the same so that's not an indictment against either the jet or the program. Unless you planned on flying the older jets forever you were going to pay for it somehow.

But is it REALLY in "production" if the buyer has stopped accepting them since last July?

Are the jets being built? Are they cancelling their orders? Then the answer is of course it's in production.

They started building these 17 years ago and we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the program didn't continue to be a stinker.

Of course we would. People have agendas. If there is a weapon system in production somebody gets the spotlight by complaining about it. They complained about the, "boxy, slow" F-22 as if their lives depended on it. If the F-35 was a "stinker" nobody would be buying it. Is that the case? Nobody wants it?

 

[sferrin]

I think the reason this argument is divisive, is it's essentially two arguments packed into one (and a bonus one), which have opposing answers:

• Does the US possess the highest level of technology and is it present in the F35: I'd argue the answer is yes
• Given that level of technology, was building a single airframe, the F-35, the best decision: I'd argue the answer is no.

And the bonus question:

• Given the needs of a small to mid-sized US country that can't afford to operate a large or complex airforce, is the F-35 the best: I'd say that it's quite close to optimal, with most of the shortcomings coming not from the plane itself, but the attached political and economic strings.

I agree with most of what you say. My only disagreement (and I can't think of a better alternative unfortunately) is that they had to be rolled together if we wanted to be able to replace the Harrier.

 

[edwest4]

Any F-16/F/A-18/Harrier replacements would have done the same so that's not an indictment against either the jet or the program. Unless you planned on flying the older jets forever you were going to pay for it somehow.




Are the jets being built? Are they cancelling their orders? Then the answer is of course it's in production.



Of course we would. People have agendas. If there is a weapon system in production somebody gets the spotlight by complaining about it. They complained about the, "boxy, slow" F-22 as if their lives depended on it. If the F-35 was a "stinker" nobody would be buying it. Is that the case? Nobody wants it?

"older jets"? What does that mean? The B-52 has soldiered on, with upgrades, since the 1950s. During the Cold War, there was a fight to see which bomber, missile and jet would get funded and go into production. After the Second World War, the U.S. offered obsolete, or about to be obsolete, military equipment to our Allies, no matter how small. We even convinced some banks to lend those countries money. New equipment - whether aircraft or something else - gets built because the Almost Enemy produces something better. I'm sure the U.S. has designs that are ready to go when an "anticipated threat" appears in the air.

 

[LowObservable]

that they had to be rolled together if we wanted to be able to replace the Harrier.

1 - So what, ultimately, has been the cost to replace the Harrier, in terms of added cost and time, and performance compromises?

2 - STOVL didn't allow the UK to build a smaller aircraft carrier. As explained already, the need for a Forrestal-size ship to accommodate enough F-4-size aircraft for simultaneous air defense and strike, plus AEW, was identified in 2003. And the RAF doesn't care a fig for off-base operations.

3 - The Harrier's ability to operate from short and improvised runways has not been replaced. (Kinda-STOL on 6000 feet of the PCH is not the same thing.)

4 - The only practical benefit that the US gets from STOVL is that LHA/LHDs can carry a complement of six F-35s, but with no organic AEW, EW, or AAR support

 

[sferrin]

1 - So what, ultimately, has been the cost to replace the Harrier, in terms of added cost and time, and performance compromises?

Hard to say. Add up the lifetime cost of the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier programs and you'll be into the trillions as well.

2 - STOVL didn't allow the UK to build a smaller aircraft carrier. As explained already, the need for a Forrestal-size ship to accommodate enough F-4-size aircraft for simultaneous air defense and strike, plus AEW, was identified in 2003. And the RAF doesn't care a fig for off-base operations.

France does it with a smaller carrier right now. (And it's not like the QEs are flying E-2s.)

3 - The Harrier's ability to operate from short and improvised runways has not been replaced. (Kinda-STOL on 6000 feet of the PCH is not the same thing.)

Looks shorter than 6000 feet to me.

View: https://youtu.be/ygVlvlvnmTU?t=54

4 - The only practical benefit that the US gets from STOVL is that LHA/LHDs can carry a complement of six F-35s, but with no organic AEW, EW, or AAR support