The F-35 Broke the U.S. Air Force...Yeah I told you so.

[mrklean]

How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force By David Francis
4 hours ago
0 shares Content preferences Done
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive, and possible the most error ridden, project in the history of the United States military. But DOD has sunk so much money into the F-35 - which is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over the 55-year life of the program - that the Pentagon deemed it “too big to fail” in 2010.

Now, the Air Force has taken steps to make sure that the unmitigated disaster that the F-35 has become does not happen again.

The Air Force, in its 20-year strategic forecast entitled “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future,” has called for an end to big-ticket programs like the F-35. Instead, it plans to invest in what DOD officials have called more “agile” weapons that can be adapted for multiple uses.

Related: The Pentagon’s Incredible $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The report paints a future of the Air Force that resembles an innovative 21st Century company as opposed to a traditional fighting force. The document says that it’s now impossible for the United States to build a strategy advantage with large, expensive programs that take years – in the case of the F-35, 14 years and counting to complete.

“We believe rapid change is the new norm and has serious implications for the Air Force,” the document states. “The pace at which disruptive technologies may appear and proliferate will result in operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived. Dynamic and increasingly frequent shifts in the geopolitical power balance will have significant implications for basing, posture, and partner capabilities that may favor flexibility over footprint.”

The F-35 isn’t mentioned by name in the forecast, but the program’s greasy fingerprints are all over it. The Air Force is apparently concerned that it is pricing itself out of the weapons market because it is spending so much time and money on large programs.

“Agility is the counterweight to the uncertainty of the future and its associated rapid rate of change. We learned from sequestration that our brittle system often leads to suboptimal decisions that are difficult to reverse,” the document reads. “Huge, long-term programs limit our options; we are too often left with ‘all or nothing’ outcomes and ‘double or nothing’ budget decisions.”

“Large, complex programs with industrial-era development cycles measured in decades may become obsolete before they reach full-rate production,” the authors added. “The system is cumbersome, as the cost and complexity of these large programs draw additional layers of oversight and scrutiny.”

The strategy shift is also a recognition of the shrinking budget environment at DOD, which is expected to lose $600 billion over the next decade. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the change is also a reflection of compensation for members of the Air Force rising dramatically over the last 16 years.

Related: World’s Most Lethal Drone Just Flew over Florida

More than anything, the shift in strategy is an indictment of the way that the Air Force and the rest of DOD have been doing business for years. The F-35 has come to symbolize all that’s wrong with American defense spending: uncontrolled bloat, unaccountable manufacturers (in this case, Lockheed Martin), and an internal Pentagon culture that cannot adequately track taxpayer dollars.

It’s no small irony that on the same day the change in Air Force strategy was revealed, Winslow Wheeler, a staff member at the Project On Government Oversight and a long-time critic of the F-35 program, reported that American taxpayers will pay between will pay between $148 million and $337 million per jet in 2015, depending on the model.

“A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a ‘generic’ F-35 costs $178 million,” Wheeler wrote.

Related: Flawed $1.5 Trillion F-35 Misses Its Global Debut

“It gets worse. These are just the production costs. Additional expenses for research, development, test and evaluation are not included,” he added.

Of course, this price tag is up dramatically from 2014.

“The cost of an F-35B grew from $232 million in 2014 to a bulging $251 million by 2015,” Wheeler wrote. “The cost of the Navy’s F35C grew from $273 million in 2014 to a wallet-busting $337 million by 2015.”

[93henfan]

It has been a disaster, no doubt. And you didn't tell anybody anything. Everyone knows about it already, especially those of us who work in Government procurement. It's a lesson learned in how NOT to procure a major system.

[houndawg]

It has been a disaster, no doubt. And you didn't tell anybody anything. Everyone knows about it already, especially those of us who work in Government procurement. It's a lesson learned in how NOT to procure a major system.

You'd think that as long as they've been procuring they'd get better at it.

[93henfan]

It has been a disaster, no doubt. And you didn't tell anybody anything. Everyone knows about it already, especially those of us who work in Government procurement. It's a lesson learned in how NOT to procure a major system.

You'd think that as long as they've been procuring they'd get better at it.

The problem with the JSF is the J. Trying to make a joint platform is plum stupid in the major systems acquisitions realm.

[ASUG8]

Should have had China build it for us for 50% off. They already hacked the plans.

[Ibanez]

How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force By David Francis
4 hours ago
0 shares Content preferences Done
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive, and possible the most error ridden, project in the history of the United States military. But DOD has sunk so much money into the F-35 - which is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over the 55-year life of the program - that the Pentagon deemed it “too big to fail” in 2010.

Now, the Air Force has taken steps to make sure that the unmitigated disaster that the F-35 has become does not happen again.

The Air Force, in its 20-year strategic forecast entitled “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future,” has called for an end to big-ticket programs like the F-35. Instead, it plans to invest in what DOD officials have called more “agile” weapons that can be adapted for multiple uses.

Related: The Pentagon’s Incredible $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The report paints a future of the Air Force that resembles an innovative 21st Century company as opposed to a traditional fighting force. The document says that it’s now impossible for the United States to build a strategy advantage with large, expensive programs that take years – in the case of the F-35, 14 years and counting to complete.

“We believe rapid change is the new norm and has serious implications for the Air Force,” the document states. “The pace at which disruptive technologies may appear and proliferate will result in operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived. Dynamic and increasingly frequent shifts in the geopolitical power balance will have significant implications for basing, posture, and partner capabilities that may favor flexibility over footprint.”

The F-35 isn’t mentioned by name in the forecast, but the program’s greasy fingerprints are all over it. The Air Force is apparently concerned that it is pricing itself out of the weapons market because it is spending so much time and money on large programs.

“Agility is the counterweight to the uncertainty of the future and its associated rapid rate of change. We learned from sequestration that our brittle system often leads to suboptimal decisions that are difficult to reverse,” the document reads. “Huge, long-term programs limit our options; we are too often left with ‘all or nothing’ outcomes and ‘double or nothing’ budget decisions.”

“Large, complex programs with industrial-era development cycles measured in decades may become obsolete before they reach full-rate production,” the authors added. “The system is cumbersome, as the cost and complexity of these large programs draw additional layers of oversight and scrutiny.”

The strategy shift is also a recognition of the shrinking budget environment at DOD, which is expected to lose $600 billion over the next decade. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the change is also a reflection of compensation for members of the Air Force rising dramatically over the last 16 years.

Related: World’s Most Lethal Drone Just Flew over Florida

More than anything, the shift in strategy is an indictment of the way that the Air Force and the rest of DOD have been doing business for years. The F-35 has come to symbolize all that’s wrong with American defense spending: uncontrolled bloat, unaccountable manufacturers (in this case, Lockheed Martin), and an internal Pentagon culture that cannot adequately track taxpayer dollars.

It’s no small irony that on the same day the change in Air Force strategy was revealed, Winslow Wheeler, a staff member at the Project On Government Oversight and a long-time critic of the F-35 program, reported that American taxpayers will pay between will pay between $148 million and $337 million per jet in 2015, depending on the model.

“A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a ‘generic’ F-35 costs $178 million,” Wheeler wrote.

Related: Flawed $1.5 Trillion F-35 Misses Its Global Debut

“It gets worse. These are just the production costs. Additional expenses for research, development, test and evaluation are not included,” he added.

Of course, this price tag is up dramatically from 2014.

“The cost of an F-35B grew from $232 million in 2014 to a bulging $251 million by 2015,” Wheeler wrote. “The cost of the Navy’s F35C grew from $273 million in 2014 to a wallet-busting $337 million by 2015.”

I stopped reading after the title. This has not cost $1.5 Trillion. That's EXPECTED life cycle costs of 55 years and even that number has been reduced in the past year.

[Ibanez]

You'd think that as long as they've been procuring they'd get better at it.

The problem with the JSF is the J. Trying to make a joint platform is plum stupid in the major systems acquisitions realm.

I, personally, think it's stupid to make variations for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Why not make 1 fighter with all those capabilities? Same with MRAPs. LTV's. It's been my experience that anything that is Joint, is a huge boondoggle.

[Ibanez]

Should have had China build it for us for 50% off. They already hacked the plans.

What this article (and all of them actually) leave out is the price tag of the JSF for our allies. If you think America is the only country procuring, you're a moron.

[93henfan]

But Mark, it's been a disaster of a program, you must admit. And the end result is not going to be a game changing platform. The taxpayers deserved more for less.

I went into this in great detail in past threads so I won't rehash, but this project had poor cost controls during every stage of the development. It will be used as the most important case study at Defense Acquisition University for the next hundred years.

[ASUG8]

The problem with the JSF is the J. Trying to make a joint platform is plum stupid in the major systems acquisitions realm.

I, personally, think it's stupid to make variations for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Why not make 1 fighter with all those capabilities? Same with MRAPs. LTV's. It's been my experience that anything that is Joint, is a huge boondoggle.

Joint platform between US and allies, also within USN/MC/AF, and 15 yrs of development = scope creep. No way this thing had a chance of being all things to all parties, on time, and on budget.

[Grizalltheway]

But Mark, it's been a disaster of a program, you must admit. And the end result is not going to be a game changing platform. The taxpayers deserved more for less.

I went into this in great detail in past threads so I won't rehash, but this project had poor cost controls during every stage of the development. It will be used as the most important case study at Defense Acquisition University for the next hundred years.

Man, I bet the tail there is out of sight.

[93henfan]

There are some pretty decent looking DC twenty something chicks at most DAU courses I've attended.

[Cap'n Cat]

How

Many

Hungry

Children

in

Appalachia

and

Montana

would

that

Money

have

Fed

?

[93henfan]

How

Many

Hungry

Children

in

Appalachia

and

Montana

would

that

Money

have

Fed

?

Assuming a meal costing $1.50, exactly one trillion.

[93henfan]

And there are no such thing as hungry children in Montana. They'll knife a fucking bear, climb inside its carcass for shelter, and nibble on its frozen meat for the next ten months until the Road to the Sun is open again and help arrives.

[Grizalltheway]

And there are no such thing as hungry children in Montana. They'll knife a fucking bear, climb inside its carcass for shelter, and nibble on its frozen meat for the next ten months until the Road to the Sun is open again and help arrives.

Ahh, memories.

[Ibanez]

But Mark, it's been a disaster of a program, you must admit. And the end result is not going to be a game changing platform. The taxpayers deserved more for less.

I went into this in great detail in past threads so I won't rehash, but this project had poor cost controls during every stage of the development. It will be used as the most important case study at Defense Acquisition University for the next hundred years.

I've said it before in the countless threads about the F-35: As someone that WORKED at the Program Office on this project, it's a total cluster f*ck.

[89Hen]

How

Many

Hungry

Children

in

Appalachia

and

Montana

would

that

Money

have

Fed

?

Let them eat planes.

[Ibanez]

I, personally, think it's stupid to make variations for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Why not make 1 fighter with all those capabilities? Same with MRAPs. LTV's. It's been my experience that anything that is Joint, is a huge boondoggle.

Joint platform between US and allies, also within USN/MC/AF, and 15 yrs of development = scope creep. No way this thing had a chance of being all things to all parties, on time, and on budget.

While working with the JSF Program Office, we did the F-35 and several other ISR projects. Anyway, there's a joint effort with the Australians. Their PO puts ours to shame. I learned a lot in my 1 1/2 years with that office.

[Ibanez]

How

Many

Hungry

Children

in

Appalachia

and

Montana

would

that

Money

have

Fed

?

Let them eat planes.

Another "quote" that was never uttered. Only evidence of it anecdotal.

[Grizalltheway]

How

Many

Hungry

Children

in

Appalachia

and

Montana

would

that

Money

have

Fed

?

Let them eat planes.

It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber.

[Ibanez]

Let them eat planes.

It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber.

The older I get, the more and more I agree with that quote's premise.

[93henfan]

I call bullshit. We had a couple of bake sales every year when I worked for the Air Force.

[89Hen]

The older I get, the more and more I agree with that quote's premise.

Hard for me to comment. Public schools around here have money coming out of their arses. The public schools around my house:

[Grizalltheway]

Well no shit. Don't you live in one of the richest counties in the country?