# Why have we wasted so much money on the F-35? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228 "2016-04-27T01:49:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/62 "2016-04-27T22:13:58Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Except that its actually a pretty shitty jobs program that provides no real benefits to the public at large, nor improves our national security, nor genuinely advances commercializable technology, or is otherwise a good investment of either tax revenue or human capital. There are any number of pet projects from sustainable energy research and next generation transportation fuels, to space exploration and in-situ resource usage, planetary surveillance and defense, to recruiting and funding biotech materials and medical research. > > \ > > Military spending on supposed cutting edge development of new weapon systems benefits a very tiny minority of high value investors and the Congresspeople beholden to them and the votes they can bring. > > Stranger Preachin to the choir, man. Military spending is WAY down on my list of priorities. But - big surprise! - my priorities don’t seem to get reflected in a hell of a lot of spending decisions. Last time I spend much energy on this topic was when Electric Boat was getting a contract for some sub that - as best I can remember, the navy didn’t even want. But that shop contributes greatly to the Conn economy, from the (relatively few) folk on the line, to the guys running the 7/11 outside the gates. Yeah, I’d prefer a meaningful “workfare” system, investment in our infrastructure, etc. But as long as we are transferring more and more wealth to the wealthiest (what seems to be a PRIMARY goal of our government), at least we have a shiny toy at the end. Better than pouring it down a hole in the desert and covering it up with GI bodies, necessitating unending and unsupportable VA bills… I didn’t say I support it. Just said it is relatively low on the ever-increasing list of things that outrage and confound me about our nation’s apparent priorities. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/63 "2016-04-27T23:01:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suppose that depends on how you define “ready”. The Marines declared IOC last year. The Air Force will probably due so later this year. The rational definition of Initial Operatinal Capability doesn’t generally mean “sitting off the flight line for months at a time because of basic design flaws, untested software, and manufacturing problems preventing delivery of a complete aircraft”. This procurement made the infamous Bradley Fighting Vehicle development look like an efficient, streamlined, corruption-free development process. Major General Partridge: Just because the tests didn’t turn out the way Colonel Burton thought they would, was no reason to suspect there was anything devious going on. Madame Chairwoman: I ask you General, filling the fuel tanks with WATER before a test to check the combustibility of those tanks, that wasn’t devious? Major General Partridge: If the tanks had been filled with fuel, there’s a good chance the vehicle would have exploded. Congressman #1: Isn’t that the point? Major General Partridge: If the vehicle had exploded, we wouldn’t be able to run additional tests[RIGHT]-- _The Pentagon Wars_[/RIGHT] Stranger ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/64 "2016-04-27T23:04:14Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > One estimate I’ve seen for a UAS with F-35 like capabilities is about 10% of the cost of the pre-inflation F-35 That estimate was wildly inaccurate. An F-35 costs us around $100-120 million today. Do you know what you can get with $10-$12 million? Half of a Reaper, which is nowhere near as capable as an F-35. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > a fighter aircraft that costs as much as a Kennedy-era aircraft carrier Huh? What are you calling a “Kennedy-era aircraft carrier”? _USS Enterprise_ cost $451 million (according to Wikipedia). That’s about four times the cost of an F-35. And where’d you get the idea that we don’t expose expensive weapon systems to risk? We routinely expose our most expensive aircraft (B-2 bombers) to risk by having them bomb dangerous places in Syria / Iraq / Afghanistan or fly near North Korea or China. Even relatively-cheap rotary-wing aircraft like the Apache, Chinook, Black Hawk, Pave Hawk, Osprey, etc cost tens of millions of dollars, and we expose them to risk all the time. Arleigh Burke destroyers cost something like $2 billion, and we sailed one of those near one of China’s man-made islands recently. ---
**Author:** ![tonyfop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@tonyfop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tonyfop)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/65 "2016-04-28T00:00:51Z")
I work at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, where the Navy and Marine Corps are testing their variants of the F-35, and from what I hear from people that are actually working on the project there are two major snags that are holding up production and driving up costs. First there is the problem of component non-compatibility. Much of the savings were supposed to come from streamlined logistics due to compatibility of components across all three variants. This has been a complete failure, and I believe that compatibility is now under 20% of components. Whoever thought that a V/STOL and a conventional aircraft could be compatible was probably high. And if it wooshed anyone, the F-111 references upthread were only brought up to show that we have been down this road before, and it didn’t work then either. The second roadblock is the $17 billion ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System) which does not work. While the Aircraft can fly without it, it was also supposed to keep costs down by making maintenance troubleshooting easy, since the Aircraft not only is supposed to be able to tell you what has broken, it can also tell you what is about to fail. There is no backup. The maintenance database that we use for all other Naval/Marine Corps Aircraft (NALCOMIS) cannot be used at all. I was just checking in my NALCOMIS system last week to see if they had added capability, and I found that they had not. It is impossible to enter an F-35 aircraft into the system. I don’t know for sure, but I can only assume that all maintenance records must be kept on paper for now. While we do have procedures to do that, no one has had to do it on a day to day basis since the early 90’s. You cannot deploy a squadron like that. There are very few people left on active duty who have had to use paper for a squadron for more than a week. I would not want to see what would happen if they tried to deploy for 9 months like that. This also leads to the problem that the maintenance Manuals are all written assuming that ALIS works, meaning that troubleshooting steps are almost non-existant. So far, the Marines have needed Lockheed personnel to help them with routine maintenance. That should not happen if it is operationally capable. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/66 "2016-04-28T00:28:03Z")
> [@tonyfop](#): > > The second roadblock is the $17 billion ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System) which does not work. While the Aircraft can fly without it, it was also supposed to keep costs down by making maintenance troubleshooting easy, since the Aircraft not only is supposed to be able to tell you what has broken, it can also tell you what is about to fail. . I was on a panel at a defense oriented conference on testing and diagnostics, which led to a committee (bottom up) in which those of us in the non-defense electronics sector could relate best practices, since there seemed to be a big problem. It never went anywhere since we could never find anyone willing to admit there was a problem. There was a requirement that all failures be diagnosed to one or two components 100% of the time, which is quite a tall order. This requirement was in the contracts, and it appeared that contractors always were able to do this, which amazed me. Until I learned their qualification test. It was selecting two or three defects - the contractors’ choice - and showing they could be diagnosed. In my area the defense industry is something like 20 year behind civilian electronic products. And you guys need better stuff than we do. Having been on a bunch of conference calls about this nothing that you said surprises me at all. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/67 "2016-04-28T00:28:05Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > One estimate I’ve seen for a UAS with F-35 like capabilities is about 10% of the cost of the pre-inflation F-35, and also benefits from having a smaller profile and less mass in having greater range and lower radar cross section. Who on earth said that? Even the Navy’s UCLASS, which had flirted with requirements that were substantially less capable than an F-35C in every respect except endurance, was headed for a flyaway cost of $80-$100 million or perhaps more. The program has more or less been cancelled. (Or the be hyper-accurate, restructured beyond recognition.) That’s just a wee bit lower than the flyaway cost of an F-35C today. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/68 "2016-04-28T01:56:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How much cheaper do you think 4th/4.5 gen fighters are than 5th gen fighters? We don’t need 4th generation fighters for counter insurgency operations either. How about $14 million for a Super Tucano, fit it out with some ECM to avoid shoulder mounted SAM’s and only send them in once a smaller fleet of stealth fighters have finished the SEAD and totally destroyed the opposing air force. > **[Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano)** > > The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano (English: Super Toucan), also named ALX or A-29, is a Brazilian turboprop light attack aircraft designed and built by Embraer as a development of the Embraer EMB 312 Tucano. The A-29 Super Tucano carries a wide variety of weapons, including precision-guided munitions, and was designed to be a low-cost system operated in low-threat environments. > In addition to its manufacture in Brazil, Embraer has set up a production line in Portugal through the company OGMA an... ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/69 "2016-04-28T07:42:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > McCain… noted that the F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179. What is a good way to describe the performance of the F-35s the US military does have? How much stuff can they destroy with 179 F-35s? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/70 "2016-04-28T08:25:51Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > What is a good way to describe the performance of the F-35s the US military does have? How much stuff can they destroy with 179 F-35s? Probably would be already the 6th or 7th most powerful air force in the world all by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/71 "2016-04-28T11:07:41Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Probably would be already the 6th or 7th most powerful air force in the world all by themselves. Not right now they wouldn’t be. The current Block 2B software is severely deficient, full combat capability is not going to achieved until Block 3F which is supposed to arrive Jan 2018 but has already been delayed multiple times. [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying) ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/72 "2016-04-28T12:09:37Z")
> [@tonyfop](#): > > I work at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, where the Navy and Marine Corps are testing their variants of the F-35, and from what I hear from people that are actually working on the project there are two major snags that are holding up production and driving up costs. … Man, what a depressing - but believable - post! ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/73 "2016-04-28T12:18:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I recall people saying the same things about the F-14, F-15 and F-16, as well as the F-18 (and a multitude of US bombers). F16’s was the opposite of the F35. The performance of the prototypes and early production models was excellent throughout and it faced hostility from the services, the complete opposite of what has occured with the F35. Indeed as [FAS](http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm)points out > [@](#): > > USAF was then in the uncomfortable position of having a lightweight fighter design that could outmaneuver and outrange its pride and joy, the F-15 air superiority fighter.\*\* In real-world combat conditions, which meant Mach 1.2 or below, the F-16s held a significant edge over the F-15\*\*. To some extent this problem was solved by designating the F-16 as a “swing fighter” to do both air-to-air and air-to-ground, while the F-15 was to continue its aristocratic mission of pure air-to-air. > > Probably the F-16’s greatest asset during development was its unpopularity with the USAF establishment. Knowing that their airplane was in constant threat of cancellation, the General Dynamics designers were inspired to do everything possible and then some to maintain performance and prevent cost growth The F16 was uncomfortably good in testing, the F35 has been uncomfortably bad. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/74 "2016-04-28T14:29:27Z")
[QUOTE=AK84] F16’s was the opposite of the F35. The performance of the prototypes and early production models was excellent throughout and it faced hostility from the services, the complete opposite of what has occured with the F35. Indeed as FAS points out [/QUOTE] Yet there were serious concerns with the F100 engine initially, and several air craft were lost. I don’t see where they brought any of that up. There were also bugs with the then cutting edge fly by wire system…again, they seem to have glossed over those. Basically, it’s horseshit that there were no serious issues or concerns with the F-16 and that ‘The F16 was uncomfortably good in testing’…that’s hindsight and propaganda bullshit talking. ANY design that is cutting edge is going to have problems and issues, and any of them are going to have detractors both technical and political. And F-16 was no exception to this. I think a certain level of rose colored glasses are shading your memories of the past. Granted, F-35 has had more issues than F-16 did, but then F-35 is a much more cutting edge design with a lot more bleeding edge innovations and systems today than F-16 had in the past, but it hasn’t been ‘uncomfortably bad’, and it’s on par with several operational US weapons platforms that had issue in early testing or even production but eventually went on to give us great service. As this plane will. A decade from now people won’t even recall most of this…as they have seemingly forgotten the teething issues with weapons systems now considered great. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/75 "2016-04-28T18:54:27Z")
As others have already pointed out, all complex new weapon systems have bugs and glitches that need to be worked out. There was a time the F-22 was suffocating its pilots. The F-35 isn’t particularly expensive for modern fighter jets, and it brings some great capabilities to us and our allies. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/76 "2016-04-28T23:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > John McCain: F-35 is ‘a scandal and a tragedy’ He’s just bitter they won’t let him crash one. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/77 "2016-04-29T01:32:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The F-35 isn’t particularly expensive for modern fighter jets, and it brings some great capabilities to us and our allies. Yes it will eventually. But both the idea of concurrency and the idea of using the same airframe for both a vertical take off plane, a carrier capable plane and a conventional fighter have been dismal failures. And then there is the fact that the USAF is putting all their eggs in one basket, planning to use the F35 for everything from close air support to wild weasel / SEAD to ground strike to air superiority to counter insurgency. Who wants to bet that that will be a pipe dream and the USAF will eventually have to go back to congress begging for more money for dedicated air craft for some of these roles? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/78 "2016-04-29T02:15:58Z")
The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. Plus, the F-16 happens to already fill most of the roles that you mentioned, having taken them over from other retired platforms. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/79 "2016-04-29T02:20:17Z")
Well not ALL their eggs (they still want LRS-B, F-22s, F-15s, etc). ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/80 "2016-04-29T04:25:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. Plus, the F-16 happens to already fill most of the roles that you mentioned, having taken them over from other retired platforms. The eventual goal is to retire the F-16 completely and the F-35 is supposed to take over all of its roles, and to retire all the A-10’s, again with the F-35 doing CAS. Literally the F-35A/B/C and the F-22 will eventually be the only fighter / attack craft in the USAF, Navy and Marine inventory. Everything else except bombers and cargo planes is supposed to go. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/81 "2016-04-29T14:14:11Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > The eventual goal is to retire the F-16 completely and the F-35 is supposed to take over all of its roles, and to retire all the A-10’s, again with the F-35 doing CAS. Literally the F-35A/B/C and the F-22 will eventually be the only fighter / attack craft in the USAF, Navy and Marine inventory. Everything else except bombers and cargo planes is supposed to go. The Navy will still have Super Hornets, the Air Force will still have Strike Eagles, and the Marines, well the Marines are sticking weapons on [EVERYTHING](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERzT8KoVY7k) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228.md?page=5)