Regular readers will know that I've been angry about the F-35 Lightning II program for several years. It appears to be a poster child for mismanagement, sticker shock, price overruns and mission bloat. I believe it'll bankrupt the US armed forces if it's not canceled, or at least dramatically scaled back.
Now comes evidence that at least one version - the US Marines' F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant - has come under critical scrutiny for several years, but this criticism has failed to produce action or results. David Axe has produced two excellent articles summing up what a test pilot had to say about the F-35B:
Test Pilot Tried to Warn Navy About Troubled Stealth Jet
Marines’ Stealth Fighter Repeating Navy Jet’s Embarrassing History
Marines’ Stealth Fighter Repeating Navy Jet’s Embarrassing History
Here's a blistering excerpt from the first article.
The Marines readily concede that the F-35B suffers from reduced range, endurance and payload compared to the Air Force’s F-35A and Navy’s F-35C — and even compared to the Corps’ current FA-18s and old Air Force F-16s, for that matter.
But the Marines insist they don’t need all of the range, endurance and payload because they will operate ashore in austere conditions, with short mission ranges and cycle times. Regardless, the laws of physics mean a STOVL jet will never have the same capacity as conventional jets, because the airplane jump jet design dedicates space and weight to the vertical lift system.
Why STOVL at all? Why not just have a good short-field capability, allowing the USMC to abandon the fancy stuff that provides vertical lift?
If the Marines conceded that point, the rationale for their very own jet would evaporate and they would be forced to abandon their little STOVL fast-mover air force, or else buy Navy or Air Force airplanes. And if that happened one would rationally ask why the Corps needs any fast-movers at all? Why can’t the Navy and Air Force do that job?
The answers to these questions are unacceptable to the Marines who want their own unique jet, even though those answers might be eminently logical and reasonable for national defense.
. . .
The F-35B is technically a great little machine that provides a lot of ego-massaging and heart-thumping flight capabilities for air shows, although tactically it has more sex appeal than real muscle. The problem is that it provides nothing for the mission it was designed to do that can’t be done better by other resources that are already available to us today.
We have wasted too much money chasing an airplane that is dead on arrival, perhaps worse than useless because it is more of a burden than an asset in combat operations. It is a nice air-show airplane, but it does nothing to advance the amphibious assault mission or the art of war for which it was allegedly designed.
There's more at the link, and in the second article. Recommended reading.
Meanwhile, Boeing has just flown inert versions of conformal fuel tanks and a low-drag weapons pod on its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike aircraft, currently in service with the US Navy. Flight Global reports:
The prototype tanks fitted to the test aircraft, which Boeing is leasing from the US Navy, are aerodynamically representative, but are non-functional. The production version will weigh 395kg and carry 1,588kg (3,500lb) of fuel, Summers says, boosting range by 260nm (481km).
Like the conformal tanks, the prototype weapons pod is also an aerodynamically representative shape, but is non-functional. Boeing has performed windtunnel tests with the pod's doors open up to speeds of M1.6, it says.
An operational version of the weapons pod is expected to weigh roughly 408kg and hold 1,134kg of munitions. But despite its large payload, it will have roughly the same drag profile as a centerline drop tank, Summers says.
The modified Super Hornet boasts a 50% improvement in its low-observable signature. While not an all-aspect stealth aircraft, Gibbons says the enhancements will greatly improve the Super Hornet's already low frontal radar cross-section.
While it will not equate to a dedicated stealth fighter, it will be "good enough" for most of the navy's future missions in contested airspace, he says.
Summers says the prototype-equipped fighter has flown 15 flights, accumulating 25h. Nine additional flights are planned, which are anticipated to amass a further 14h.
Efforts are also under way to integrate an internal infrared search and track system on to the Super Hornet and to boost engine power on the jet's General Electric F414s by 20%.
Again, more at the link.
So, tell me . . . given that the Navy's existing Super Hornets can be upgraded to have greater range than the F-35, and already have superior dogfighting performance (which will be further enhanced if more powerful engines are fitted), and can be made almost as stealthy as the F-35 . . . why are we still spending almost three times as much for each copy of the latter as we will on the former? And why are we prepared to tolerate operating costs for the F-35 that are at least 50% higher than for the F/A-18E/F? And why, in an operating environment where unmanned strike aircraft are already dominating in many areas and are likely to dominate many more in future, are we still devoting over a trillion dollars to an as-yet-not-ready-for-service manned strike aircraft program?
Boondoggle. There's no other word for it.
Peter
6 comments:
Peter, I'm sorry to say this is factually inaccurate. The aircraft being replaced by the "Marine" (f35B)version of the F35 is the AV8B Harrier II.
The AV8B is an older aircraft no longer in production. It is slower than the F35B, has much less range, is not stealthy in any aspect, uses outdated/no longer in production electronics, is particularly vulnerable to shoulder fired heat seeking missiles, and cannot easily accommodate the latest air to air and air to ground weapons.
Taking the Super Hornet is this role, that aircraft cannot: Take off from ship without a cat, cannot land on a ship without arresting gear. It cannot take off or land from minimal expedient fields ashore. It other words, it cannot be used from the USN Amphibious fleet, nor can it be used by Marines in the battle area ashore.
The FZ35 may indeed be too costly for the US at this time. That evaluation should be done carefully and accurately-not in a spurious manner.
@Glen: Those points are covered in the article - it was too long for me to quote all of them here.
I tend to agree with the author: the F35B is a hangover to an earlier time. The USMC has never, repeat, NEVER operated the AV-8B in the amphibious assault role they envisioned for it; and they almost certainly won't use the F-35B that way either. Instead, the F-35B will give them an aircraft with shorter range and more limited payload than the USN or USAF models, but which they can operate from their large troop transports. It preserves a unique role for Marine aviation.
I have no problem with the Marines preserving their aviation component, but I repeat my assertion that the F-35 program as a whole, and the F-35B model (the most expensive version) in particular, is a gold-plated boondoggle.
Gee if that F-18E/F Super Hornet get any more of those fancy external gadgets attached to it it start to look and act exactly like an F-111 Ardvark.
Between the F-35 and the Little Crappy Ship (LCS), one begins to wonder if there is deliberate sabotage of the military built into the procurement process.
LittleRed1
The F35 mission role is to create jobs in as many congressional districts as possible. That's it.
Aside from actually keeping people employed, the F35B is necessary for the Marines. The Corps is trying really hard to get down to ONE attack aircraft type to simplify their logistics.
The F35B allows the Marines to have air support without needing an entire carrier group with them. It's expensive, but we learned this lesson back with the F4 and the F111: If you want an airplane that can do everything, it will cost.
Don't forget that the F18C/Ds are out of production and are rapidly aging.
Post a Comment