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

Jackonicko said:
For those who have been dismissive of Bill's credibility and reputation... He is again a finalist in the hardest fought category of the Aerospace Media Awards.
Click to expand...
Considering it's an award sponsored by LM, something tells me he won't have as much success in the future.
 
sferrin said:
I don't think anybody questions his ability as much as his objectivity. He's been on the F-35 hate train almost since the beginning, possibly only exceeded by Carlo Kopp.
Click to expand...
Strong critical opinions are not inconsistent with objectivity. I would say that Bill has looked hard at the F-35 programme, with objectivity, and found it wanting.
Any aircraft programme whose flaws are as clearly apparent as the F-35, and whose unique capabilities so apparent, is going to polarise opinion, in the same way that Trump does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Objectivity. Not sure where this comes from, but:

As a journalist, your job is not to report that Mr Smith says it's raining and Ms Jones says it isn't. Your job is to LOOK OUT OF THE ****ING WINDOW AND SEE IF IT'S RAINING.
'
J-Schools don't teach this very well, and tend to undermine it with mechanistic concepts of "balance" where both sides get some kind of equal weight. Not bad in principle, but it does mean. for example, that people or organizations with a record of false statements keep doing that, and getting quoted, particularly if they have power (control of access and advertising budgets, for example). It also allows people or institutions to take extreme positions and move the Overton Window so that the center "balanced" position is more favorable to them.

As a reporter, author, and op-ed writer, my job is generally to make sure that whatever I'm saying is compatible with the view out of the window, and that I am pretty clear about what is opinion, what is analysis and judgment, and what is fact.

And cast your mind back 15 years or so. Is the state of the program today more like what you'd expect from reading my stuff back then, or from reading some of my J-Schooled colleagues?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LowObservable said:
Objectivity. Not sure where this comes from, but:

As a journalist, your job is not to report that Mr Smith says it's raining and Ms Jones says it isn't. Your job is to LOOK OUT OF THE ****ING WINDOW AND SEE IF IT'S RAINING.
'
J-Schools don't teach this very well, and tend to undermine it with mechanistic concepts of "balance" where both sides get some kind of equal weight. Not bad in principle, but it does mean. for example, that people or organizations with a record of false statements keep doing that, and getting quoted, particularly if they have power (control of access and advertising budgets, for example). It also allows people or institutions to take extreme positions and move the Overton Window so that the center "balanced" position is more favorable to them.

As a reporter, author, and op-ed writer, my job is generally to make sure that whatever I'm saying is compatible with the view out of the window, and that I am pretty clear about what is opinion, what is analysis and judgment, and what is fact.

And cast your mind back 15 years or so. Is the state of the program today more like what you'd expect from reading my stuff back then, or from reading some of my J-Schooled colleagues?

PS Trust me, you don't want to get me started on Trump, but I will say that covering JSF was really good practice for thinking about the last eight years of U.S. politics.
Click to expand...

My thanks for this. Balance in the face of facts requires the facts to win. As in a court case, evidence is presented. The bias and self-serving maneuvering, and problems, caused by the other side are presented with evidence to back it up. That's all this is. The hard part is doing the actual work. I get the impression that on the internet, there are people who are self-deluded. Who are unable to believe that anything really worth doing takes a long time. I know that is never the case.
 
edwest4 said:
My point is, choosing the right title for a book is critical. The market MUST be considered. You decide the title based on who you want to sell it to. The problem is, most writers/researchers have no clue about how to do that. They know how to write and research but not how to sell the finished product. That's usually the publisher's decision.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, a friend's book is due out soon, it went through pitch, acquisition, writing and editing under one title, it will appear under a completely different one because when marketing got a look at it they decided they didn't like the title.
 
DWG said:
Absolutely, a friend's book is due out soon, it went through pitch, acquisition, writing and editing under one title, it will appear under a completely different one because when marketing got a look at it they decided they didn't like the title.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, it's a bit more of a science than a personal like/dislike decision. Publishers eat, sleep and breathe buyer behavior. We can't afford to ignore it if we want to stay in business. Example: The Oranges Are Sweet. Quick. What is this book about? There is an airplane on the cover but what is it about? That is not a good title. When people scan the shelves, they make snap decisions. If you confuse them for even a second, they're going to pick something else, like History of the 354th Fighter Wing.
 
Obviously people are pretty passionate about the F-35. Interested parties might want to check out American Gripen by David Archibald. It's a little old (2016 I think) but interesting - the author thinks the USAF should abandon the F-35 and buy the Gripen instead,
 
Jackonicko said:
Surely the main reason NATF failed was that there wasn't the budget for any more than a variant of F-35? That an entirely new naval fighter (flowing from a new and separate develpment programme) was unaffordable?

But since we're dealing with 'What ifs' and imaginary aircraft, how about a stretched F-35C with bigger bays, bigger intakes, and twin F-135 engines?
Click to expand...
The USN pulled out when the production rate was reduced from 72 x ATF and 48 x NATF to 48 x ATF and 36 x NATF. This raised the unit cost to the point that the USN thought it was unaffordable, more so since the A-12 was in development and costs were rising. With the A-12 cancellation the A/FX program was started, which would have given the Navy an F-14 sized stealth aircraft to replace the A-6 and F-14, but that also got cancelled at which point JSF was the only game in town. Shoehorning the Navy JSF into the program was more of a problem than combining MRF and ASTOVL was, especially since it isn't capable enough to do what the USN really need it to do any more that the Superbug was.
Shoes31 said:
"1Some say the lower availability rates of the F-35 are offset by its superior potency, thoughts on this?

If the airplane was really as good, 1-v-1, as the fans say it is, the USAF would have stayed with the adaptive engine vs. revised F135."


That seems backwards to me, if the airplane was not good 1 vs 1, the USAF would have prioritized the adaptive engine to establish the F-35s superiority. In addition it would need the best engine upgrade possible to still be relevant for 20 more years, cost notwithstanding.

Going forward with the revised F135 is an indication that the airplane is plenty capable as is, and that its all the upgrade needed to keep it relevant for 20 more years cost notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
My opinion, Pratt lobbying is what killed the adaptive engine since GE was ahead on development, could fit their engine in both the A and C, and thought they could get it into the B as well, while PW said they couldn't fit the B, and might not be able to fit the C. At which point Pratt said "nah, the F135 is fine, never mind the fact we were enthusiastic up until GE showed they would probably win".
 
LowObservable said:
By the way... re Saabophilia, something I compiled a few years ago.

View attachment 729705
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s look a bit at this comprehensive chart on the post-WW2 Switzerland of the North aviation achievements. Any iron left after WW2? Kidding! Kidding! Easy folks.

1. Ejection seat.
How much was that Nazi supplied?

2. Airborne AESA.
I thought the Japanese one in the F-2 was first?

3. Ground to air packet switched datalink.
How does STRIL 60 compare with SAGE?

4. Ramjet operational AAM.
That’s a hamstring pulling stretch as you need the Ramjet missile to begin with.
 
apparition13 said:
My opinion, Pratt lobbying is what killed the adaptive engine since GE was ahead on development, could fit their engine in both the A and C, and thought they could get it into the B as well, while PW said they couldn't fit the B, and might not be able to fit the C. At which point Pratt said "nah, the F135 is fine, never mind the fact we were enthusiastic up until GE showed they would probably win".
Click to expand...
You'll be surprised to know I have an opinion about that, with bonus Debbie Gibson/Tiffany catfight-scene reference.

What did you do in the Great Engine War, Daddy? – Valkyrie Strategic Solutions LLC

valkstrat.com valkstrat.com
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Ok, let’s look a bit at this comprehensive chart on the post-WW2 Switzerland of the North aviation achievements. Any iron left after WW2? Kidding! Kidding! Easy folks.

1. Ejection seat.
How much was that Nazi supplied?

2. Airborne AESA.
I thought the Japanese one in the F-2 was first?

3. Ground to air packet switched datalink.
How does STRIL 60 compare with SAGE?

4. Ramjet operational AAM.
That’s a hamstring pulling stretch as you need the Ramjet missile to begin with.
Click to expand...
The Saab J21 seat had dual explosive guns - the German seats used compressed air.

First airborne AESA was Saab 340 AEW.

I believe the Swedish system was fully operational just ahead of SAGE, but I looked at that a long time ago and might be wrong.

The Swedes were part of Meteor from the outset and deserve credit for reaching IOC first.
 
apparition13 said:
The USN pulled out when the production rate was reduced from 72 x ATF and 48 x NATF to 48 x ATF and 36 x NATF. This raised the unit cost to the point that the USN thought it was unaffordable, more so since the A-12 was in development and costs were rising. With the A-12 cancellation the A/FX program was started, which would have given the Navy an F-14 sized stealth aircraft to replace the A-6 and F-14, but that also got cancelled at which point JSF was the only game in town. Shoehorning the Navy JSF into the program was more of a problem than combining MRF and ASTOVL was, especially since it isn't capable enough to do what the USN really need it to do any more that the Superbug was.

My opinion, Pratt lobbying is what killed the adaptive engine since GE was ahead on development, could fit their engine in both the A and C, and thought they could get it into the B as well, while PW said they couldn't fit the B, and might not be able to fit the C. At which point Pratt said "nah, the F135 is fine, never mind the fact we were enthusiastic up until GE showed they would probably win".
Click to expand...
I still think the Navy should have gone ahead with the NATF, since, IMO, there has been a shortfall in carrier-based capability ever since the F-14 was retired that neither the Super Hornet nor the F-35 will ever fill completely. A navalized F-22 would have been feasible, though I would havd done it without the swing-wing.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Ok, let’s look a bit at this comprehensive chart on the post-WW2 Switzerland of the North aviation achievements. Any iron left after WW2? Kidding! Kidding! Easy folks.

1. Ejection seat.
How much was that Nazi supplied?

2. Airborne AESA.
I thought the Japanese one in the F-2 was first?

3. Ground to air packet switched datalink.
How does STRIL 60 compare with SAGE?

4. Ramjet operational AAM.
That’s a hamstring pulling stretch as you need the Ramjet missile to begin with.
Click to expand...

Ejection seat.

In the U.S., Captain John Paul Stapp, an M.D., was drafted into the ejection seat program in 1946. He had to report to the Biophysics Branch, Special Projects Section at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. They... "issued his new engineer a 1,200 page set of captured German technical documents, reports mostly, relating to aircraft ejection seat tests and biomedical examinations of human tolerance to the forces an explosive ejection creates." Stapp was fluent in German. "The Germans had created elaborate test facilities at Tempelhoff Airport in Berlin and had constructed a 60 foot ejection test tower." From pages 52 and 53 of Sonic Wind by Craig Ryan.

* The author sometimes colors outside the lines, adding his own bias, but this does not really detract from the rest of the book. The cover text is atrocious, and again, shows a bit of fantasy in the author's thinking.
 
Last edited:
Flying Sorcerer said:
Obviously people are pretty passionate about the F-35. Interested parties might want to check out American Gripen by David Archibald. It's a little old (2016 I think) but interesting - the author thinks the USAF should abandon the F-35 and buy the Gripen instead,
Click to expand...
I cannot take this idea very seriously when it doesn't give the USAF any more capability. The thrust from a single F414 (or F404 on the original Gripen) can only buy you so much airplane to work with. The F-35 gets a lot of criticism for not having enough range for the Pacific Theater but does the Gripen do better? No. It really doesn't fit any of the specific scenarios USAF has to concern itself with. For the amount of money it would take to set up a production line for the Gripen in the USA you could easily make some "Super Falcon" out of the F-16 by incorporating Block 60 and Block 70 improvements with either a F-16XL or F-16U style wing, or a bigger wing/tail like on the Agile Falcon or Japanese F-2. RCS reductions could make it entirely comparable to the Eurocanards or Super Hornet in that area.

LowObservable said:
By the way... re Saabophilia, something I compiled a few years ago.

View attachment 729705
Click to expand...
I think some qualifications are necessary for some of these. SAGE would be very close to the date of the Swedish data link and was also done on a larger scale. I'm not sure how the timeline on the Viggen's CK37 compares with the ADC on the F-14 but that is also pretty close in date.

The Israeli Phalcon system entered service at about the same time as the Saab 340, maybe a bit earlier. Meteor is very much a multi-nation European program. I don't think reaching IOC first deserves extra credit when consider case specific (often budgetary) circumstances of all the partner nations.

As for a relaxed-stability canard-delta wouldn't that be the EAP and Rafale A if you are counting prototypes? I suppose Gripen beat the Eurofighter and Rafale to operational service.
 
edwest4 said:
The following is off topic but illustrates the point that too much meddling, and desiring a big payoff, can sink anything.

www.latimes.com

Column: It wasn't just the endless shrimp — Red Lobster's corporate owners drove it into bankruptcy

Red Lobster's private equity owners saddled it with overpriced leases and overpriced shrimp, then blamed customers for its problems.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
Click to expand...
I saw that story. The question is who was funding the company that bought the real estate from the hedgies, because they are probably going to get stuck with a lot of mall-adjacent restaurant buildings. I hate places that hand you a plastic bib anyway.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I cannot take this idea very seriously when it doesn't give the USAF any more capability. The thrust from a single F414 (or F404 on the original Gripen) can only buy you so much airplane to work with. The F-35 gets a lot of criticism for not having enough range for the Pacific Theater but does the Gripen do better? No. It really doesn't fit any of the specific scenarios USAF has to concern itself with. For the amount of money it would take to set up a production line for the Gripen in the USA you could easily make some "Super Falcon" out of the F-16 by incorporating Block 60 and Block 70 improvements with either a F-16XL or F-16U style wing, or a bigger wing/tail like on the Agile Falcon or Japanese F-2. RCS reductions could make it entirely comparable to the Eurocanards or Super Hornet in that area.


I think some qualifications are necessary for some of these. SAGE would be very close to the date of the Swedish data link and was also done on a larger scale. I'm not sure how the timeline on the Viggen's CK37 compares with the ADC on the F-14 but that is also pretty close in date.

The Israeli Phalcon system entered service at about the same time as the Saab 340, maybe a bit earlier. Meteor is very much a multi-nation European program. I don't think reaching IOC first deserves extra credit when consider case specific (often budgetary) circumstances of all the partner nations.

As for a relaxed-stability canard-delta wouldn't that be the EAP and Rafale A if you are counting prototypes? I suppose Gripen beat the Eurofighter and Rafale to operational service.
Click to expand...
While I’m not a f-35 fan I’m immune to Gripenitis.

Meteor AAM: “UK 39.6% and Germany 16%. France is funding 12.4%, Italy 12%, and Sweden and Spain 10% each”
Full partner?
 
LowObservable said:
I saw that story. The question is who was funding the company that bought the real estate from the hedgies, because they are probably going to get stuck with a lot of mall-adjacent restaurant buildings. I hate places that hand you a plastic bib anyway.
Click to expand...
In the 1960s, being a millionaire was a big deal. Today, the same goes for billionaires. The driving principle is this: There is no such thing as too much money. Followed by: I want the biggest payoff in the shortest time. This is then followed by meetings where the sharks... er, hedge fund people, hunt for things they can exploit, but don't really care to understand.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I cannot take this idea very seriously when it doesn't give the USAF any more capability. The thrust from a single F414 (or F404 on the original Gripen) can only buy you so much airplane to work with. The F-35 gets a lot of criticism for not having enough range for the Pacific Theater but does the Gripen do better? No. It really doesn't fit any of the specific scenarios USAF has to concern itself with. For the amount of money it would take to set up a production line for the Gripen in the USA you could easily make some "Super Falcon" out of the F-16 by incorporating Block 60 and Block 70 improvements with either a F-16XL or F-16U style wing, or a bigger wing/tail like on the Agile Falcon or Japanese F-2. RCS reductions could make it entirely comparable to the Eurocanards or Super Hornet in that area.


I think some qualifications are necessary for some of these. SAGE would be very close to the date of the Swedish data link and was also done on a larger scale. I'm not sure how the timeline on the Viggen's CK37 compares with the ADC on the F-14 but that is also pretty close in date.

The Israeli Phalcon system entered service at about the same time as the Saab 340, maybe a bit earlier. Meteor is very much a multi-nation European program. I don't think reaching IOC first deserves extra credit when consider case specific (often budgetary) circumstances of all the partner nations.

As for a relaxed-stability canard-delta wouldn't that be the EAP and Rafale A if you are counting prototypes? I suppose Gripen beat the Eurofighter and Rafale to operational service.
Click to expand...
CK37 was well ahead of F-14. Was access to that something that the neutral peace-loving Swedes traded for shutting down their very viable nuke-weapons program?

I have speculated that the Guard and Reserve would love the Gripen, if only for playing Datalink Velociraptor Games on the regulars.
 
LowObservable said:
The Saab J21 seat had dual explosive guns - the German seats used compressed air.

First airborne AESA was Saab 340 AEW.

I believe the Swedish system was fully operational just ahead of SAGE, but I looked at that a long time ago and might be wrong.

The Swedes were part of Meteor from the outset and deserve credit for reaching IOC first.
Click to expand...
Ahem

en.wikipedia.org

EL/M-2075 Phalcon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The first fighter was either the F-15 with it's APG-63(v2) or the Japanese F-2.
 
I have to stand corrected on Phalcon. Maybe. Israel-Chile seem to have been ahead. But again it apparently wasn't ready before 1995.

The Swedes got access to very early IC tech from Fairchild for the JA 37 digital computer.

I know where Swedish iron went. And a lot of American aluminum ended up in Sweden too.
 
edwest4 said:
An aside if I may, I am sick and tired of anonymous experts posting on various sites about expertise they may or may not have. If you know the answer, then publish it. In a book.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Looking a quite a few of you right now.
 
Purpletrouble said:
It must be hard not to have expertise, but I wouldn’t know.

I suppose one could just bitch on about something for decades, despite no actual expertise in doing any of it, and then write a book about that bitching to try and fleece a few gullibles of their cash. I guess it works for some.
Click to expand...
Well clearly you don't have enough to write the ultimate book on the matter. You see how that works?
 
Jackonicko said:
Bill Sweetman has been a highly regarded frontline journalist for decades, with side gigs in industry.
He is widely recognised as being one of the leading authorities on LO. He is recognised as being one of the foremost commentators on the F-35.
I can guarantee that he has spoken in greater depth, to far more of the most senior programme insiders than you have. He has a brain the size of a planet, and understands what those with "deep and/or broad, experience" tell him, and a formidable ability to discern between the truth and industry 'spin'.

The penchant of people like you to 'gob off '(from behind a comfortable cloak of anonymity), taking potshots at a man who is worth ten of you, who has a great more insight, knowledge and experience than you, and who has the guts to raise his head above the parapet, because he is driven to illuminate and educate, is, frankly, a bit vomit-inducing, and you really should go and give yourself a bit of a talking to.

For less acid-filled folk, you can bet your bottom dollar that Bill's book will be insightful, beautifully well-written, amusing and smart.
Click to expand...
Well-said.
 
edwest4 said:
Print book sales are strong. I've got the numbers. My company also sells PDFs. Sales of the latter are mostly to people who don't want to pay for shipping. That said, based on a non-scientific survey I've conducted, most people prefer paper books. People who are avid book collectors have to figure out where to put them once all the shelf space is gone. I'm doing fine on that front, with plans to keep buying paper. I have no desire to spend more time staring at my computer screen. As in the past, I want reading a book to be a totally separate task that does not involve a screen.
Click to expand...

This will be me.

4661.jpg
 
I don't have the book, but from reading the interview on the hushkit blog, I feel like the (entirely valid) viewpoint of his is this:
Circa 2000, the expectation was to build the F-16/F-18 succcessor by taking the F-22, making some reasonable compromises, scaling down capablities to a reasonable degree and focusing on more pedestrian metrics like affordablity, availability etc.
These expectations were fair, and since the F-22 was already well underway, and all the essential tech (stealth, engines, sensors) was already flying, it would be trivial to scale it down a bit.

And it turned into a huge sh*tshow .
 
Last edited:
Bruno Anthony said:
While I’m not a f-35 fan I’m immune to Gripenitis.

Meteor AAM: “UK 39.6% and Germany 16%. France is funding 12.4%, Italy 12%, and Sweden and Spain 10% each”
Full partner?
Click to expand...
You need to look at where the individual design elements came from, not the funding. IIRC S225 was the BAE proposal, which then became S225X when the Swedish proposal was smooshed into it, and then there was a late switch to a German engine technology, and that's Meteor. Making the Swedes either the second or third most significant contributor to the design.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom