Watchdog report deals another blow to F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[IDemo]

Source: NBC News

Hundreds of problems continue to plague the troubled Joint Strike Fighter, potentially calling into question the basic performance and reliability of the costliest weapons program in U.S. history, the Defense Department's inspector general charges in a new report.

In a 16-month investigation that began in February 2012, the inspector general's office — an agency within the Pentagon responsible for investigating allegations of waste, fraud, security lapses and other misconduct — identified more than 360 quality "issues" with the F-35 Lightning II — with 147 of them classified as "major."

The report, which was published Monday — hours before the U.S. government shut down because of congressional infighting — blames "ineffective" oversight by the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office and the Defense Contracts Management Agency that failed to catch lapses by chief contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and numerous subcontractors — issues it said "could adversely affect aircraft performance, reliability, maintainability and ultimately program cost."

"The government incurred and will continue to incur a significant cost for these issues," the IG concluded.

Read more: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20777728-watchdog-report-deals-another-blow-to-f-35-joint-strike-fighter?lite

[Kolesar]

1. The alternative is to keep using F-18s, IMHO

The prediction of operating costs is 850 billion dollars.
I have written to Congress about this cold war turkey before and will again.

[Angleae]

3. Actually, the air force would use F-15s & F-16s, but what do the marines do.

Their harriers have a limited life expectancy and there is absolutely no replacement available.

[Kolesar]

5. That is insightful, but we are still painted into a corner

A death-pact where we have to buy the lemon for the Marine Corps.
The generals and majors will still get paid even if they know it sucks.

[happyslug]

7. With a 58 mile range in the VTOL mode, how about artillery? Or cruise missiles?

While the Harrier has a listed range of over 200 miles, that is in a Short take off or landing mode (STOL) NOT a Vertical Take off or Landing Mode (VTOL). In the VTOL mode the range of the Harrier is only 58 miles AND then only in its Air Superiority mode (i.e, with anti-aircraft missiles only).

The navy is about to come out with some cannons with ranges over 100 miles. Cruise missiles can also "Replace" the Harrier in Air Support roles and in the Air Superiority roles, we have the Patriot Missile System (and the Navy's "Standard Missile System".

Sorry, the Harrier was always a very marginal aircraft, with limited range and fire power in the VTOL mode. It is more usable in the STOL mode, but then it needs a landing field or deck. Given today's Surface to Air Missiles (including the Standard and the Patriot) having a Harrier is very marginal. These other weapons can provide the needed air cover that is provided by the Harrier in the VTOL mode, and can provide the ground support the Harrier can provide in the STOL mode.

The old Iowa class battleship's 16 inch guns had a range of 24 miles, with base bleed or rocket assist the range could reach almost 30 miles. With some minor modification that could be doubled. Navy's 8 inch guns have a range of 41 miles (and longer if modern base bleed or rocket assist is added).

More on the Iowa's 16 inch guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16-50_Mark_7

The Vietnam era 8 inch guns with 41 mile range:
http://www.g2mil.com/8inchguns.htm

Sorry, when you look at the Harrier and its limitation and what else is on the battlefield that can provide the same "service" (lack of a better term), be it air cover or support for grounds forces, Artillery and missiles can perform both duties and replace the Harrier.

As to targets outside the range of Cruise missiles, you are also out of range of most Aircraft without refueling. Refueling means either a large tanker from an airfield or a smaller, but still large, aircraft from a Carrier. Thus if you rely on refueling why not operate more effective F/A-18s, F-16s and F-15s from those same air bases (or in the cases of F/A-18 from that Carrier). This is why the British phased out the Harrier and I hate to say it so should the Marines.

[Angleae]

12. Cruise missiles are limited in number, artillery isn't generally available in amphib ops.

There are only a couple dozen cruise missiles on each destroyer or cruiser, not to mention they cost nearly a million each. Artillery isn't available until it has been deployed ashore, this is when the VTOL planes are needed. As far a naval guns go, only the upcoming Zumwalt class has the necessary range but they're has hiddeously overpriced as the F-35.

PS: The british phased out the harrier in favor of the F-35.

[happyslug]

15. The British phased out the Harrier for a Plane NOT even ready to be even tested....

Yes, the British may want the F-35, but I do not see that happening. As to Artillery, I pointed out Naval Guns fire, which is available in most operations. Furthermore a modern US Naval Destroyer has 96 missiles launch tubes. In an amphibious operations these could be all ground combat support missiles with other Destroyers dedicated to AA missiles.

Now once a Destroyer uses up all of its Missiles it has to go back to base to get new missiles, but that is NOT true of such ships when it comes to Cannon Ammunition. Cannon Ammunition can be transferred from a cargo ship to the Destroyer in the High Sea if more ammunition is required.

The Arleigh Burke Class of Destroyers, today's Navy top Destroyer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

The Arleigh Burke also has 680 rounds of 5 inc (127mm) rounds for its guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun#Variants

The Arleigh Burke's Five (5) inch (127mm) gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun#Variants

These guns have a range over 23 Miles. Thus if you have five Arleigh Burke Class destroyers off the Coast of Syria (which we do), you can fire 480 Cruise missiles (if so equipped). Now once the missiles are fired, the Destroyer has to go back to port to get new missiles, but as I stated above that is NOT true of its Guns.

The Arleigh Burke Destroyer can fire over 3400 Five (5) inch (127mm) rounds anywhere within 23 miles off the Coast. If the US Navy ever replaces these Five (5) inch (127mm) weapons with Eight (8) inch (203mm) guns (as has been proposed), the number of rounds would be about the same thus these Destroyers could drop over 3000 rounds anywhere within 40 miles of the Coast (and with improved shells 50 miles off the coast).

Remember 20 miles is the width and length of most US Counties East of the Rocky Mountains (As you near the Rockies the counties get larger till you get to San Bernardino County in California the largest County in the US). 20 Miles was the furtherest distance most Armies could march in a day, in the days when Armies went to war on foot (Erwin Rommel's offensive in Libya 1941, one of the fastest in WWII, averaged only 13 miles a day). The fastest movement of troops prior to Desert Storm was the Chinese Intervention into Korea in 1950, they averaged 20 miles a day (on foot and horseback). Modern Armies move faster. it took the US Military 20 days to go from Kuwait to Baghdad in 2003, a distance of 248 miles.

Time line of the US invasion of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Distance from Basra to Baghdad:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=27

Now, that comes to just over 14 miles a day, but the US did NOT go directly from Kuwait to Baghdad. Instead the US circled around the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, this increased the distance traveled by US Forces. The Increase in distance depends on how close US forces stayed to the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, but no more then Triple that distance (Through maneuvering around to avoid enemy contact may have increased travel distance even more). Thus US forces could have advanced up to 50 miles per day (I suspect it was closer to 30 miles per day, the troops were crossing soft sand NOT hard ground). Please remember I am talking about AVERAGE times, many units may have done 100 miles in a day (or even more), and then had to wait three days for their supplies to catch up (thus the Average was only 25 miles per day, one day 100 miles, three days of Zero Miles).

My point is 20 miles is sufficient range for most purposes. 40 Miles may be over kill, Please remember it is 58 miles in an air superiority mode, i.e. NO bombs. IF you want air support from a Harrier you have to have a field or carrier (Harriers can operate off Gator Navy "Carriers" with increased weapon's load and range almost 200 miles) but in any amphibious operation the invasion will have to be supported by either land base aircraft OR a Carrier so what advantage does the Harrier actually provide the invasion fleet? In the Vertical Takeoff or Landing mode (VTOL) nothing, in the Short Takeoff or Landing mode (STOL) from a Gator Navy Carrier, what can those eight Harriers provide that the Arleigh Burke's des-toyer can not with the Arleigh Burke's 96 Cruise missiles and 3400 rounds of Five (5) Inch (127mm) guns?

Given the short range of the Harrier in the VTOL mode, no advantage (and I do not see the F-35 given the Marines any advantage over the Destroyer in the VTOL mode). The Arleigh Burke's missiles, including Anti=Aircraft missiles can cover more then the 58 miles the Harrier can fly in the VTOL mode. In the STOL mode, you are tyeing up a Carrier, probably a Gator Navy Carrier, but still a Carrier for operation of a plane that is inferior to the F/A18 is flying combat support missions for the Marines.

Gator Navy Carriers:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

Sorry, the more I look into the Situation the Harrier should be junked and the F-35 VTOL option canceled (I am for Canceling the entire F-35 project on excess cost grounds, but I am here only making an argument that these VTOL jets are NOT worth the cost, for you have a COMBINATION of weapons, the F/A 18 of the US Navy and the Missiles and guns of the Arleigh Burke's Destroyers that between them cover anything the Harrier can do. If one or the other of these weapons systems did not exist, then an argument could be made for the Harrier, but both do exists and between them provide the combat support the Harrier can supply.

Furthermore do not put to much faith in Aircraft. They are important, they can decide and win battles, but the numbers are limited. For example no one has produce more then 1480 aircraft since the F/A 18 come out in 1978, more then 1600 since the Mig-29 came out in 1977, 4500 since the F-16 come out in 1974, 5047 since the MIG-23 came out in 1967 and since the 1960 only one other aircraft has been introduced that more 1196 were built (and that was the F-15 which come out in 1972.

The Russians came out with some aircraft in the 1960s that exceeded 1000 in number (Su-17, MIG-25, SU-15, Su-9) as did the Chinese (the J-7 Chinese copy of the MIG-21, J-6 Chinese copy of MIG-19, J-5 Chinese copy of MIG-17) as did the US in the from of the F-5 and F-4, but since 1960 only these aircraft (and the Aircraft on the previous paragraph) and the French Dassult Mirage III have exceeded more then 1000 planes in production (the 1950s saw some Jets produced in the 10,000 numbers, the MIG-15 at 18,000 the the F-86 at 9,860 are two examples).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft

Only 1196 F-15 were ever built (with and additional 418 SF-15 E Strike Eagles

Only 1480 F/A-18 were built

British Aerospace only built 278 Harriers,

McDonalle Douglas only built 323 Harrier II :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II

One comment has been given the small numbers of actual fighters in use today (through with much higher performance then the planes of WWII and the Early jets of the 1950s) that unless you have the entire force of the US, NATO (or the Soviet Union at its height) come down on you (and you were NOT a large Country, like Russia or China) the force is less then overwheming (This can be seen in the War on Serbia, the Serbian Army survived the Air Attack fairly well intacted which force the US to decide on a ground offensive or to limit its goals to Serbian Forces out of Kosovo, the US opt for the later and that was agreed to by the Serbs. The President of Serbia later lost the next election to an even more right wing canidate who to appease the US turned him over to the UN for a War crime trial but that was long after the war had ended).

You saw the same thing in Iraq, Air Power did little until US ground forces, forced the Iraqi Army to try to concentrate their forces for an attack. It was the combination of Ground Attack and Air Attack that ended up destroying the Iraqi Army (and that was the same result in Desert Storm in 1991).

On the other hand, where ground forces can be found among locals, then Air Power can be decisive. That is what happened in Lybia. The ground Componet was the opposition groups to Gaddafi. As they organized they asked for air support and any line Gaddafi tried to hold was pounded into submission, then the ground forces pushed to the next defensive line. When Gaddafi retreated southward and out of the range of NATO aircraft he had more ability to manever, but by then he was reduced to a very small group that the opposition could handle in a ground attack without air support. I suspect the main reason there was NO NATO attack on Syria was they was not enough air refueling capacity to launch an attack. Turkey and Greece both refused to permit the attack from the bases in their Countries and Cyprus and Isreal are out for other reasons, thus the nearest base was in Sicily, to far for an attack on Syria without aerial refueling.

This is how Air Power produces victory. It is nice to have it close by, but as long as the ground forces know when it is coming they can arrange their attack around it. The Harrier could provide instantous Air Cover, but that can be provided by the AA missiles on any Destroyer off the Coast. As to Air Support, beyund the range of the Guns of the Destroyer, you are better off with the F/A-18 out of Sicily then Harriers from any Gator Navy Carrier (more fire power, more bombs and given the number of F/A-18 and F-16s a lot more bombs).

Just a comment that the Harrier is a plane looking for a mission that other weapons can not perform as well. Right now two weapons system does a better job at given Combat Air Support and Air Superirioy, those are the 5 inch Guns and the Cruise missiles on the Arleigh Burke Destroyers and F/A 18 from full size carriers (or even F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and A-10s from land air bases).

[Angleae]

17. The USN has no ships with a gun size bigger than 5" (active or reserve)

All other ships have either been scrapped or donated to museums. The 8" gun upgrade died in 1978, long before the Burkes were even thought of and while the Burkes have a 23 mile range with their guns, hitting anything at the range is damn near miraculous, guided munition development having died in 2008. And about the 480 cruise missiles, there is absolutly no way 5 destroyers have that many, 100 total between the 5 of them maybe but the bulk of the missiles will be SM-2/SM-6 as that is what the ship is there for (with a few ESSM, ASROC, and SM-3 filling up the rest).

[happyslug]

18. The Five and Eight inche guns are some of the most accurate guns ever designed.

They limitation is RANGE not accuracy. In WWI an Eight Inch Gun could hit a pillbox at its maximun range, as late as Vietnam Smart Weapons were NOT as accurate (After Vietnam that changed, mostly do to increase ability to change direction of the smart bomb AFTER it was dropped).

With Modern Fire controls, the old practice of Fire and Adjust, i.e. firing a round to see where it hits and then adjust fire to the target is no longer needed. Fire and Adjust came about do to the inability to determine where the gun was and where the target was in relation to each other. Gunners made a quick educated guess using mechanical computers and then adjusted fire. With modern GPS both the position of the Gun and the Target can be determined within minimeters of each other and thus Cannon fire can then be direcly applied without adjustment.

The Aleigh Burke can take an Eight (8) inch (203mm) gun, but presenly has only a Five (5) inch (127mm) gun. The ability to upgrade to the Eight (8) inch (203mm) gun was designed into the Aleigh Burke's design do to a desire to retain the ability to upgrade these Destroyers if that was deemed necessary. The Marines have been calling for that change for decades but the Navy wants to use one weapon for all of its ships and right now that is the Five (5) inch (127mm) gun.

Sorry, even if the US Navy stays with the Five (5) inch (127mm) gun, its 3400 rounds up to 23 miles inland is more then sufficient for most operations. If you look at the Harrier in STOL (Short take off or landing) mode (the VTOL, Vertical Take off and Land mode, is only used in Air Superiorty missions), you have a range of 200 miles, but the F-18 can carry much larger amount of weapons AND go further AND can operate off an Air field or a Carrier that can provide refueling capacity, something missing on a Gator Navy Carrier. Sorry the combination of Cannons on the destroyers and the ability to get better air cover from a full size Carrier off sets whatever advantage the Harrier provide in the absence of these two weapons systems.

Remember no one is going to send in a Gator Navy Carrier without Destroyer escourts and no one is going to sent a Gator Navy Carrier to far away from an Air Base or a Carrier. To do so you are asking for a diaster. Thus the Harriers (and the F-35 B, the Harriers successor) will never operate in an environment with out a Destroyer escourt AND to far from some other source of Air Cover. Thus these VTOL airplanes are very marginal.

[Blue_Tires]

11. Why do the marines even *need* a jet??

Seems like the F-35 would have been much more viable if it was tailored to the needs of one armed service, not three...

[Angleae]

13. Because they need different capabilities.

The VTOL model could be used by all 3 services but it is the least capable due to the weight and spaced used by the lift engine and larger wings.

[happyslug]

16. I do not think the Marines need a Jet

For other weapons systems can provide anything the Harrier can provide and thus why keep a less effective system when you have cheaper and more effective weapons that can do the Jobs claimed for the Harrier.

[PNW_Dem]

9. F-18 and Drones

The Harrier was introduced in 1969. Time to move on. Cruise missiles are a huge waste of money. My vote is combo of F-18 and drones, but what do I know. I just pay the taxes wasted on all this crap.

[vt_native]

2. Fellow DUers: Please help save my hometown from this monstrosity

Please sign the petition:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/burlington-city-council.fb31?source=s.icn.fb&r_by=5250066

[Historic NY]

4. Its already 7yrs old plus before it hits the inventory...

other predictions were the life of the project would exceed 1.12 trillion. If its so great why are other countries now reconsidering or backing out. Many of it secrets and electronics data were compromised by spy's in 2007 & 2008 when they gained access to Pentegon files.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html

[The Wizard]

6. Hey, defense contractors

have to have their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes. How else will those Cayman Islands accounts get stuffed with taxpayer dollars?

[sir pball]

8. Sounds like restarting and modifying the 22 would be cheaper at this point

I mean, it's not CHEAP, but cheapER...fire up the Raptor production lines again and work out a carrier-based version. At least that R&D money is pretty much sunk, from here on in it would be mostly just production cost.

As far as V/STOL, well, I think that's a pipe dream at this point.

[happyslug]

10. One Air Force General say just buy the SU-35

As to fly-ability it is as good as the F-15 (The F-15 main advantage is the more advance electronics on the F-15, an advantage the US can over come by installing US electronics into the Frame of the SU-35). Most F-15s are at the end of their life span, not from being obsolete just do to metal fatigue caused by tasking off and landing. The F-15 line is closed down, so NOT a quick option, but the SU-35 line is open thus could be obtain quickly and the electronics installed almost as quickly.

His reasoning was simple, do to increase capacity of air defenses, even the F-22 will probably be only effective for another 20 or so years. The best way to work around those Air Defenses are one way missions, missions best done by electronic driven air planes/Drones/Missiles. These can be made smaller then any plane with a pilot (A plane with a pilot has to be able to get the Pilot back, thus it has to be big enough to carry enough fuel to make it to the target but also back from the target, with a one way mission plane you can save over 2/3rds of the fuel and make a much smaller object for the enemy to hit). Thus within 20 years what we now call Fighters and Bombers will be long range missile launchers (and given that distance, maybe easier to transport the missiles by ship or trucks as opposed to plane).

The F-22 and F-35 are technological cash pits, like Germany's WWII "Maus" tank. something driven by a desire for technolgical acheivement as opposed to real effective combat use. The SU-35 with American Electronics will be the most advance fighter in the world (with the possible exception of the F-15, which would be better would be the one with the more updated electromics) and most then sufficient for US purposes till technology pushes them out of any effective combat role.

[Ash_F]

14. Just going out on a limb....

...but maybe we don't need a military that can take on the rest of the world(and maybe another planet) at once?

Or maybe we do, the way our foreign relations are going.