From a man who knew, what he's talking about, George F. Kennan:
"Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy."
So here’s what I remember from American and World History classes.
World War II is joined by the US. Shortly after we start selling war bonds to raise tons of operating capital. We commandeer Detroit and have them build airplanes. No new cars are made for something like four years.
The draft starts, women start making the airplanes, and any raw material that goes into equipment or feeding the army gets rationed.
After the war “we need to be prepared” morphs from maintaining a strong industrial complex into a special case: the MIC. Maybe because we felt that World War III would be fought in weeks and not years.
I don’t think we know that to be the case anymore. Wouldn’t it be better for the peace time welfare of Americans to spend this volume of money on all of the constituent pieces needed to build a war machine but in plowshare form.
Domestic production of steel, aluminum, titanium, rocket motor parts. High explosives. High output robust turbofans. Transsonic passenger jets. Sensor arrays, predictive systems, generators, high torque motors (IC and electric), rifles, tents, ruggedized integrated circuits.
Only a few of those are strictly wartime products.
Good one. It reminds me of Hitler's infamous Tiger II tank. Amazing, nearly unstoppable technology; when it didn't break down driving off the factory floor.
How do the issues with the F-35 platform stack up against those of earlier models? I've read anecdotes that early on the F-16 and F-15 also had significant flaws, yet those were eventually sorted out and both have become mainstays of air forces around the world.
I've no doubt there have been massive costs overruns (what government program doesn't), but would be willing to bet that the F-35 turns out to be a really good plane and does nothing to threaten the US's position as the premier air power.
The F-15 first flew in 1972, and four years later entered service. Three years after that it was seeing regular combat in Israeli service and production was being upgraded to the F-15C/D variant. By 1984, 12 years after it flew, it had all but replaced the aircraft (F-4 variants, mostly) it was intended to in USAF service.
The F-35 first flew 12 years ago. You do the math.
It's questionable if manned high performance fighter aircraft have a vital aka non symbolic role in a modern army. That's not to say the F-35 will not be used or even preform well, but consider unmanned satellites made manned high altitude surveillance obsolete even if they where not as directly useful.
The F-35 program is an amazing thing in 2018 when every war in the last two decades has been mostly about ground insurgents. This, taken with the fact that we've had massive technological advances when it comes to drone warfare and the F-35 very much looks like a plane from the past, not the future. It would seem to be much wiser to scrap the program and re-focus on drone based solutions but that's going to hurt someone's ego so it's likely the F-35 will continue.
Our current adversaries are mostly insurgents - however, if you look forward at dwindling resources and nations doing the unthinkable and waging wars over them, then the F-35 makes more sense. With a complex and lengthy development process you're planning for the war after the next, not the current.
That being said, with all the problems the F-35 has, much like the Eurofighter before it, it might be no match for what another advanced economy could produce.
I'd argue the F-35 will help keep it that way. The general idea with spending so much on military is that no country in there right mind will declare serious war on you, as it's impossible to win. The F-35 keeps it that way by furthering the gap with countries with significant airforces (of which there are only really two adversaries, China and Russia).
The Pentagon long ago learned to program for future wars, not past ones. I am pretty sure the F-35's programmatic justifications were a nod to potential adversaries who were militarily advanced, meaning China.
If we ever face a non-nuclear conflict with a major power, say a sizable proxy war, our drone capabilities will be greatly diminished. Command and control would likely be knocked out with trivial effort through jamming.
That leaves two options: maintain a superior fleet of manned aircraft or develop drones with fully autonomous combat capability.
It's money more than ego. It subsidizes so many jobs that any politician who would vote to scrap it would get voted out. Genius move by Lockheed Martin beneficiaries to spread the project out to as many voting districts as possible.
Drones that kill people in weddings and people attending funerals for those people in the weddings .. and kids .. and the insurgents that the CIA created and paid for to destabilize States.
The F-35 is really a success in its true intention: for those at the top to funnel money into all the people and companies they need political support from. Those company heads gain support from all the people under them, all the way down to the people working in the factories that span multiple states.
Who are the United States real enemies? No one. Russia and the US act like enemies, when both countries benefit in arm sales from their many proxy wars. The US literally has no enemies, except all the enemies it intentionally makes. War machines are essential in keeping people in power, and the money of war machines are essential in keeping supporters allied, by paying for them and their businesses.
You're looking at the F-35 the wrong way entirely, and same with drones. The programs exits to preserve superiority, dominance and empire. It provides funding to cronies all the way up and down the military industry stack. Any hope of it being an actual military tool should have been shelved years ago.
The United States has 11 air craft carriers in service. That is literally more than every other nation in the world combined. Endless war is necessary to sustain those in power, and be certain those in power in the US have only changed in their percentage of influence depending on the puppet elected to be on stage.
When I saw image of F-35 few years ago with some expected date of finishing the project I thought to myself. Why the hell does this thing have a window or even cockpit at all?
One of the key expectations of the F-35 program early on was that "stealth" technology would proliferate further, and the market for exporting the F-35 would be much larger than it ended up. That made it easier for everyone to keep throwing money at the problem, although I'm sure the lobbyist did more than their fair share.
This isn't exactly the first time we've seen attempts at "universal" solutions to discrete military problems. The F-111 program was another disaster in the making, only mitigated by massively changing the requirements and dropping the Navy aspect entirely. The F-35 S/VTOL Marine variant is the largest anchor around the programs neck, but its essentially the same set of problems the F-111 project ran into.
The easiest fix would have been to just tell the Marines and Navy to go find their own aircraft solutions, and let the F-35 turn into a semi-stealthy F-16 replacement. I think we might be a little past that point now, unfortunately.
> DoD has estimated that all training and operational operations over the 50-year life of the program (assuming a 30-year life for each aircraft) will be $1 trillion, making the cost to buy and operate the F-35 at least $1.4 trillion.
A little bit of clickbait there. $1.4 trillion projected over 50 years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a great fighter. But we haven't spent $1.4 trillion on it (yet).
The F-35 promised a major a leap in technological capability. However, technology is not at the point where it deliver on that promise.
As a software engineer, I can relate to the difficulty of joining multiple sources of data. This is something that AI can potentially do very well.
I foresee the next generation of F-series aircrafts having something more akin to an AI co-pilot. This would prevent information overload.
Instead of a pilot ingesting hundreds of data points, they could have a simple interface and all the cohesion handled by the AI.
It seems that F-35 still has problems but they are slightly different than described in the article. There is also neat solution, cut F-35 orders by third to pay for increased maintenance and operating costs. http://fortune.com/2018/03/28/air-force-f-35-cost-cuts/
The beauty of all this is that this works out fine as long as there is no large high intensity war against near peer opponent in next 20-30 years.
A lot of things would conceivably not work out fine in the scenario "high intensity warfare against near peer opponent", in any conceivable future. Just for the record.
Cutting orders just results in all the development costs being amortized across fewer aircraft, driving up unit costs. That's how we ended up with the B-2 costing almost $1B per plane.
The cost per flight hour for the F-35 should eventually be lower than the F-15/16. This will be the only way the US can maintain an adequately sized air force, and naval air arm.
People always seem to forget that money doesn't evaporate.
Public expenditure usually gets ploughed directly into national and local economies. A quarter of it comes flying right back in direct tax revenue. The rest gets spent too.
I'm not saying it couldn't have done that in a better way, educational bursaries, healthcare, etc but if you're looking at this from a purely economic standpoint, the US exports this stuff. Not something you can lump on some other causes.
A friend of mine mentioned how the F-35 runs so hot that it has to cool its fuel to stop it from boiling. If that is true, how does it retain stealth in the face of thermal radiation? Like, I get radar absorbing paint, but how does one stop heat loss?
Any design I can think of amounts to carrying some really cold stuff with you and dumping the excess heat there when you need thermal stealth, but surely that can't be it.
It is still releasing the same amount of heat, but diffused a bit more. The designers were trying to avoid really "bright" hot spots, to make it harder for IR-guided missiles to lock-on.
`After extensive troubleshooting, IT personnel figured out they had to change several settings on Internet Explorer so ALIS users could log into the system. This included lowering security settings, which DOT&E noted with commendable understatement was “an action that may not be compatible with required cybersecurity and network protection standards.”`
Whenever I'm feeling bad being behind on something, I think of the F-35. Doesn't exactly make me feel better, but at least reminds me it could be worse.
Israel took delivery of five of these 2016-2017. I wonder how they're faring.
This is from April 1 2017 and much of what was written in this article does not apply any longer. The reason the US does not go 100% into drones is because drone jamming technology is not something that can easily be countered (the Russians are jamming US drones today in Syria).
The most interesting use of the F35 is not as a weapons platform but a sensor platform for sneaking behind enemy lines and picking targets for ship based weapons platforms to attack at distance.
The F-35 is definitely not a perfect program but as far as the military and US national security is concerned, not having the first 5th generation fighter would have been a much more significant failure than cost overruns.
Beyond actual use in war the purpose of this fighter is to tell other nations that if you want to go war you need to to spend $1.4 trillion dollars and countless years of research to even reach parity.
> The most interesting use of the F35 is not as a weapons platform but a sensor platform for sneaking behind enemy lines and picking targets for ship based weapons platforms to attack at distance.
A $1.7 trillion supersonic, VTOL manned fighter as a remote sensor platform? Yeah, I don't think that's such a bright idea. That's exactly what stealth drones are for.
I realize that the F-35 is a stealth fighter, but I can't help but think of this quote whenever the F-35 is mentioned.
The results were crushing. In not a single dogfight was the F-35 able to either defend itself against an attack from the F-16 or to convert its attack into a kill
One of the big reasons the F-35 program is such a disaster is that it was intended to be a fighter that could be modified for basically all Western Bloc countrie's needs. This brought an incredible amount of complexity that not only costs more money in and of itself, but became ripe for milking by the military-industrial complex.
[+] [-] jpobst|8 years ago|reply
If you believe it's to build a next generation fighter plane then yes it's a disaster.
If you believe it's a way to funnel trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to private defense companies then it's a rousing success.
[+] [-] binarray2000|8 years ago|reply
"Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy."
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan
[+] [-] hinkley|8 years ago|reply
World War II is joined by the US. Shortly after we start selling war bonds to raise tons of operating capital. We commandeer Detroit and have them build airplanes. No new cars are made for something like four years.
The draft starts, women start making the airplanes, and any raw material that goes into equipment or feeding the army gets rationed.
After the war “we need to be prepared” morphs from maintaining a strong industrial complex into a special case: the MIC. Maybe because we felt that World War III would be fought in weeks and not years.
I don’t think we know that to be the case anymore. Wouldn’t it be better for the peace time welfare of Americans to spend this volume of money on all of the constituent pieces needed to build a war machine but in plowshare form.
Domestic production of steel, aluminum, titanium, rocket motor parts. High explosives. High output robust turbofans. Transsonic passenger jets. Sensor arrays, predictive systems, generators, high torque motors (IC and electric), rifles, tents, ruggedized integrated circuits.
Only a few of those are strictly wartime products.
[+] [-] testfoobar|8 years ago|reply
https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|8 years ago|reply
$700,000,000,000
But the media's attention surrounding that recent increase was focused on Stormy Daniels and/or some other alleged Trump admin gaffe.
The MIC is very real. But it has been so normalized that few understand how "resource intensive" it really is. So much so (and I paraphrase):
"We spend more on defense than the next 8 nations COMBINED."
POTUS Obama SotU Address 2016
A former general and POTUS warned us about the MIC and we aren't interested.
[+] [-] Clubber|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
[+] [-] ataturk|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rayvd|8 years ago|reply
I've no doubt there have been massive costs overruns (what government program doesn't), but would be willing to bet that the F-35 turns out to be a really good plane and does nothing to threaten the US's position as the premier air power.
Some good discussion:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-F-35-as-bad-as-many-people-clai...
[+] [-] ajross|8 years ago|reply
The F-35 first flew 12 years ago. You do the math.
[+] [-] Retric|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patcheudor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philjohn|8 years ago|reply
That being said, with all the problems the F-35 has, much like the Eurofighter before it, it might be no match for what another advanced economy could produce.
[+] [-] ApolloFortyNine|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillyquiet|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvarangot|8 years ago|reply
It's a jobs program for engineers and aerospace mech shops.
[+] [-] abtinf|8 years ago|reply
That leaves two options: maintain a superior fleet of manned aircraft or develop drones with fully autonomous combat capability.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|8 years ago|reply
"Cyber warfare" should be the #1 concern. An F-35 isn't going to prevent the power grid from going down.
The F-35 reflects a 20th century mindset. This is very troubling.
[+] [-] bigdubs|8 years ago|reply
Unless the solution is AI.
[+] [-] djsumdog|8 years ago|reply
The F-35 is really a success in its true intention: for those at the top to funnel money into all the people and companies they need political support from. Those company heads gain support from all the people under them, all the way down to the people working in the factories that span multiple states.
Who are the United States real enemies? No one. Russia and the US act like enemies, when both countries benefit in arm sales from their many proxy wars. The US literally has no enemies, except all the enemies it intentionally makes. War machines are essential in keeping people in power, and the money of war machines are essential in keeping supporters allied, by paying for them and their businesses.
You're looking at the F-35 the wrong way entirely, and same with drones. The programs exits to preserve superiority, dominance and empire. It provides funding to cronies all the way up and down the military industry stack. Any hope of it being an actual military tool should have been shelved years ago.
The United States has 11 air craft carriers in service. That is literally more than every other nation in the world combined. Endless war is necessary to sustain those in power, and be certain those in power in the US have only changed in their percentage of influence depending on the puppet elected to be on stage.
[+] [-] scotty79|8 years ago|reply
It was even before I read this: https://www.google.pl/amp/s/www.popsci.com/amp/ai-pilot-beat...
[+] [-] trumped|8 years ago|reply
If not, then there is definitely a big problem with the F-35 (not future proof)...
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|8 years ago|reply
Iraq? (The battle against Hussein, not the occupation afterward.)
[+] [-] AcerbicZero|8 years ago|reply
This isn't exactly the first time we've seen attempts at "universal" solutions to discrete military problems. The F-111 program was another disaster in the making, only mitigated by massively changing the requirements and dropping the Navy aspect entirely. The F-35 S/VTOL Marine variant is the largest anchor around the programs neck, but its essentially the same set of problems the F-111 project ran into.
The easiest fix would have been to just tell the Marines and Navy to go find their own aircraft solutions, and let the F-35 turn into a semi-stealthy F-16 replacement. I think we might be a little past that point now, unfortunately.
[+] [-] amorphid|8 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardv...
[+] [-] unit91|8 years ago|reply
A little bit of clickbait there. $1.4 trillion projected over 50 years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a great fighter. But we haven't spent $1.4 trillion on it (yet).
[+] [-] petermcneeley|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootbear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scramblejams|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JakeTyo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nokinside|8 years ago|reply
The beauty of all this is that this works out fine as long as there is no large high intensity war against near peer opponent in next 20-30 years.
[+] [-] stareatgoats|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greedo|8 years ago|reply
The cost per flight hour for the F-35 should eventually be lower than the F-15/16. This will be the only way the US can maintain an adequately sized air force, and naval air arm.
[+] [-] diabeetusman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliwarner|8 years ago|reply
Public expenditure usually gets ploughed directly into national and local economies. A quarter of it comes flying right back in direct tax revenue. The rest gets spent too.
I'm not saying it couldn't have done that in a better way, educational bursaries, healthcare, etc but if you're looking at this from a purely economic standpoint, the US exports this stuff. Not something you can lump on some other causes.
[+] [-] Ensorceled|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m-p-3|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3pt14159|8 years ago|reply
Any design I can think of amounts to carrying some really cold stuff with you and dumping the excess heat there when you need thermal stealth, but surely that can't be it.
[+] [-] ansible|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greedo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsh123|8 years ago|reply
https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/18/why-does-the-public-ha...
[+] [-] zubi|8 years ago|reply
`After extensive troubleshooting, IT personnel figured out they had to change several settings on Internet Explorer so ALIS users could log into the system. This included lowering security settings, which DOT&E noted with commendable understatement was “an action that may not be compatible with required cybersecurity and network protection standards.”`
They use Internet Explorer?
[+] [-] linkmotif|8 years ago|reply
Israel took delivery of five of these 2016-2017. I wonder how they're faring.
[+] [-] randyrand|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djohnston|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lajhsdfkl|8 years ago|reply
The most interesting use of the F35 is not as a weapons platform but a sensor platform for sneaking behind enemy lines and picking targets for ship based weapons platforms to attack at distance.
The F-35 is definitely not a perfect program but as far as the military and US national security is concerned, not having the first 5th generation fighter would have been a much more significant failure than cost overruns.
Beyond actual use in war the purpose of this fighter is to tell other nations that if you want to go war you need to to spend $1.4 trillion dollars and countless years of research to even reach parity.
[+] [-] titzer|8 years ago|reply
A $1.7 trillion supersonic, VTOL manned fighter as a remote sensor platform? Yeah, I don't think that's such a bright idea. That's exactly what stealth drones are for.
[+] [-] bitmapbrother|8 years ago|reply
The results were crushing. In not a single dogfight was the F-35 able to either defend itself against an attack from the F-16 or to convert its attack into a kill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8xzLxFIjno
[+] [-] berg01|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cultus|8 years ago|reply