Hacker News Reader

Comment by escaped_hn | Hacker News Reader

I would hope so. The government paid 1.5 trillion for it.

Please stop repeating this misconception. To date, less than $100 billion (that's one hundred thousand millions) USD has been spent on the program. Total cost of research and development is $54.9 billion, the rest is the cost of acquiring the aircraft that have been purchased thus far.

The cost to acquire 2,443 aircraft (the currently planned production run) is $257.2 billion in 2012 USD. Operations costs for the next 55 years are projected to be either $597.8 billion USD (if you believe CAPE) or $535.8 billion USD (if you believe the JSF Program Office).

Both of those organizations have projected the total cost of the program and have said either $1016.5 billion (CAPE) or $859.0 billion (JPO).

All data taken from this document http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF, which is an official extraction from a much longer and more involved report, which you can view here: http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/0...

From 2012: "The government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.51 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters"

Dunno if it's true but it's still mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

I pointed to the latest selected acquisition report, which is the definitive document regarding program costs. It is to be considered the authoritative source for cost data related to this program. It is more recent than the document referenced in the Wikipedia article.

"The government is projected to pay $1.51T over the next 50-plus years" is a very different statement from "The government paid $1.5T for it."

We're still talking about over $650 million per plane in total lifetime costs, even from the optimistic reports -- just an absolute boondoggle of a program.

That is on order of what any fighter would cost to support over that time. Jets are very expensive.

Much more readable analysis here. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

It's hard to say how much we'll ultimately spend on the F-35 for complicated reasons. For example, it's hard to guess what jet fuel will cost in, say, 2030. Might be cheap, might be crazy expensive.

I am not fond of the program for many reasons, however, it's important to clarify what's going on with that number. I think your number of $100 billion is right. We have not yet spent $1000 billion on the program. One key point about the cost is, they projected using the fighter for 50 years rather than the traditional 30.

IMHO, it's the last wooden warship. I'd rather spend the money on unmanned specialized drones. But, i can grind that axe elsewhere. Thanks for the links, it did clarify some of my thinking about the F-35.

The "traditional 30" is only with 4th generation fighters -- as in, we've only had one generation with that lifespan. Previous generations of jet fighters could be designed, tested, fielded, and retired within as little as 10 years as the speed of technology development increased ever faster. The reasons why 4th generation aircraft have been able to last so long are numerous. I'll take a quick stab at it.

1) There haven't been any radical innovations in jet propulsion. Sure, the latest engines from GE or P&W are more efficient than the engines of the 80s, but not dramatically so. 2) The 4th generation fighters were well designed with an eye for systems growth, precisely because the government grew tired of continually developing new fighters. Insert here whatever impact you wish to give to the "fighter mafia". These aircraft were able to take advantage of digital data buses and fly by wire technologies, which were new and allowed for years and years of expansion and growth. Point-to-point wired aircraft just get really difficult to improve past a certain point. 3) Improvements in materials and manufacturing techniques incorporated into the 4th generation gave them longer service lives.

I could keep going. But you get the idea. The 4th generation was wildly successful.

And thank you for that fas.org link, it appears to be a good gathering of facts upon my initial perusal.

The government paid 1.5 trillion for an employment program for upper income engineers and managers that happened to produce a fighter jet as a side effect.

So what should the government have done about its rapidly aging aircraft fleet?

First of all, manned fighter planes are dinosaurs. No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone.

Secondly, there are existing designs that I'm sure could be refreshed for a lot less than $1.5 trillion dollars. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them -- reboot them with new electronics, better materials, etc. They'd still be far better than what anyone but maybe the Russians or the Chinese have -- and they're probably also moving to drones quickly.

Drones can be jammed and even stolen (Iran did this a few years ago). And those existing designs have had refreshes and continual improvements. Look at a Block 60 F-16 and compare it to the first F-16s. But those designs have little room for growth.

Boeing has even tried to create a stealthy version of the F-15, but has found no buyers, because even that aircrafts capabilities do not compare favorably to the avionics present in the F-35.

No country is even remotely close to totally supplanting its air force with drones entirely. You speak as of these things are happening at a greater pace than they are.

>No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone

Who do you think is flying the drones?

Algorithms.

You do know they exist for flying drones and likely for detecting, intercepting and destroying other objects in the sky ?

The USA does not fly combat drones that do "detecting, intercepting and destroying".

You do realize that an F-16 mission is flown by 1 pilot, and a drone mission is flown by 3-5 staff? It's not just manned flight it's 3-5x more manned than conventional craft, just from the ground.

Manned planes will fly for several decades still, and even upcoming generations will most likely be optionslly manned rather than unmanned. The line will blur between manned and unmanned however. Today's "drones" have more pilots than the manned craft! Often 4-5 for even a short mission. There is no autonomous flying. Quickly reacting autonomous fighters is still sci-fi.

The problem with the F-35 project is mostly that it somehow was decided to replace the Harrier. Replacing the F-15/16/18 isn't a problems. Replacing the harrier with the same craft is an engineering nightmare.

Upgrading old platforms is done continuously, up to a point where an upgrade would be so expensive/radical that a new design is better. Sticking more electronics in an old plane isn't easy, the power and cooling requirements can require big redesigns, for example.

The planes it replaces are certainly near the end of their lifespans and have been upgraded a lot over several decades. What they should have done is not make just one plane. A replacement for the F-15/16/18 would have been much easier.

> Replacing the harrier with the same craft is an engineering nightmare.

This is another misconception. The F-35 emerged from a DARPA study in the 80s to create a stealthy STOVL aircraft. The F-35 as designed started with the F-35B. The other two variants were created through modifications to this design.

The outcome is the same: replacing the 16/16/18 with a craft that is also the future stovl craft, is an engineering nightmare.

All aircraft are engineering nightmares from the perspective of the engineers who work on them. It's a very stressful and difficult field.

That's not to really argue for or against your point, but more of a personal observation.

> No human being can possibly react as quickly as a drone.

Current US drones are flown by human pilots.

1. Start with a profile of what kind of missions are run and which planes do them best.

2. Identify any overlaps to spot consolidation opportunities that don't increase risk with "jack of all trades, master of nothing" results (eg F-35).

3. With or without consolidation, invest money in each plane that proved most effective in the field and simply upgrade it.

Last test I saw with F-35's vs F-16's saw the F-16's win. So, apparently it wouldn't have taken many upgrades. ;) I'd upgrade our top interceptor (eg F-15/F-16), multi-mission (esp F-18 Super Hornet), anti-vehicle (esp A-10), recon (eg U-2 or drones), and ECM craft for starters. Those would be volume while we invest some into improving premium aircraft we use in lower volumes such as F-117, F-22, and B-2.

I'd say this would be a nice start. At ten billion into each, it still wouldn't touch the F-35 program in expense despite offering way more in results.

That was not a dog fighting test. It was a test of F-35 flight controls. The F-16 was only present to provide a visual reference to maneuver with respect to. This is the kind of misconception that arises from David Axe's failure to properly understand his sources.

Ok. Let's assume your right, he's misreporting things, and work from there. I'm interested in your assessment of its dogfighting capabilities based on that test or others.

1. Can a F-35 pilot visually track whats around them as well as a pilot of F-16's or Russian/Chinese hardware?

2. Can the craft turn as well as a F-16 or Russian/Chinese current gen fighter?

3. Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs?

If any of these is no, then Axe is on point in terms of his conclusions. He's wrong if they're all Yes's and you can back that with testing results.

My assessment of dogfighting capabilities would be my own personal assessment. That would not be worth sharing, because it's not backed up by testing. The government is conducting operational testing now, but all you'll see made public is encapsulated here: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-d...

More developmental testing will occur over the coming years. But I have nothing public to share with you. To answer your questions:

1) What do you mean by "visually track"? If you mean "with the good old Mark 1 Eyeball", no. The F-35 doesn't have the cockpit visibility of an F-16 or something like an Su-27/35. Now, if you mean, with avionics, then yes, far better. Check out this video on the EODAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY Spotting things hundreds of miles away is very realizable with this system.

2) Can the craft turn as well as an F-16?

Well, what kind of F-16? A clean F-16? That's going to be hard to beat even by a lot of combat UAVs. An F-16 with a usable combat load of bombs and A2A missiles? Yes, the F-35 has comparable maneuverability to this configuration of F-16, AND it carries all that ordnance and fuel internally, maintaining stealth. Check out the maneuverability section of this excellent resource for more info: https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/

3) Does the cannon fire reliably and with enough ammunition to do its jobs?

In ground tests, yes, it does well. The first in aircraft test was done last month (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HJjcVIuJg). It fired 10 rounds without problems. More testing to come in the future.

Basically, he has an idea of the plane in his head -- like you seem to have -- and he's bending all the facts to this narrative. It's a thing that humans do. But all this reads very differently to someone who looks at this stuff every day.

Now we're getting somewhere. :)

1. EODAS looks pretty good for long-range encounters and assisting short-range. Video avoids dogfight discussion past tracking and questionable assumption that enemies are always one missile away from defeat. Guess I'll just have to wait to see how it pans out with guns.

2. That's a good situation. The DAS and HMDS are pretty badass so long as they work as advertised. You didn't mention the top Russian and Chinese planes. How does it compare to a Su-35, for instance?

3. I meant pilots hitting what they aim at with acceptable spread. Daily Beast reported it had software issues. Since it's Daily Beast... I want see testing before I'll buy their claim and there should be some for an A-10 replacement.

So, you've given me some good information to work with. Appreciate it. Your last sentence is interesting. What are the "real problems on the flight line" for F-35?

I don't mention those planes because I honestly don't know anything about them beyond what you can read on Wikipedia.

Real problems I will not comment on, but if you so desire, you can fish around in reports by the undersecretary for defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. That's the position that the current SecDef (Ashton Carter) held until he became SecDef. It's all there in significant detail, should you desire to read it. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod/2014f35js... There's the latest one.

Good answers. Saved a copy of that for later review. Appreciate it.

Just curious. Is there any estimation of the cost of maintaining 6 seperate aircraft versus 1 ?

That is a lot of duplicate parts, engineering effort, training etc.

Plenty of internal redundancy can be reduced by sharing components and some interfaces. However, it's not redundant if it's a necessary part of solving several different problems. We don't count as redundant buying different hardware for embedded, mobile, laptop, and servers even though they might use same ISA and Linux.

Why not replace it with drones? I thought the writing was on the wall for fighter jets and bombers and in 5-10 years they can operate autonomously just as well as your average pilot can fly them. Since there is no human in them, they can be smaller, fly faster and tolerate stronger G-forces. If a manned plane is shot down, the US public gets upset but if it is a drone, no one cares. Hell, even losing two dozen drones would hurt less than a single F-35.

You seem to know a lot about aviation so I wonder why you don't think drones are a viable replacement?

They are not as of this very moment a viable total replacement. A valuable supplement to manned aviation, yes, drones are already doing this. In a few decades, who is to say? I don't know enough to even hope to make a prediction.

So these are problems that exist now:

The data link between the drone operator and drone is a weak link. It can be intercepted, studied, and even broken. Again, the Iran RQ-170 incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid... This is not an insurmountable problem, but it means that drones are not an end-all solution at this time.

Drones are not cheap themselves. The X-47 program cost is over 800 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B Now most of that is R&D, and should the type be produced in significant numbers, expect costs per unit to be much much lower, but doing some rough figuring, I doubt that costs will ever be much below $20 million per copy. Simply based on the sensor packages that would be installed.

Drones as they are now require more staffing (they can fly for long periods of time, and you need regular crew swaps). And they're not the sexiest things to operate (see: http://www.rt.com/usa/us-drone-pilots-exhausted-demoralized-...).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com