Trump asks Boeing to price up an F-35 alternative...

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Breaking my own rules a little but Trump just Twittered this:

Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!

I imagine the vertical takeoff mods might be expensive.... not to mention the stealth.

 

[Black Dog]

It's going to be funny seeing all the "journalists" who were once very critical of the F-35 now do a 180 and defend it.

 

[_Del_]

Cynically, if you can help Boeing's export business by being the launch customer with a small run of advanced Hornets or Growlers for the Navy and publicly pressure LM at the same time for better pricing on future lots of the F-35, it might not be the worst thing for anyone involved.
Taking the tweet as a stand alone statement at face value, however, makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

 

[Rickshaw]

Oh, dear. Is Mr. Trump going to compensate all those nations that have signed onto the F-35 production programme? The US has obviously got the Government it voted for. :

 

[marauder2048]

Not even the Navy bought Boeing's cost estimates for the Advances Super Hornet.

Most of the major suppliers on the Advanced Super Hornet are major suppliers on the F-35.
They have a clear preference for the latter given its longer design life and the fact that
it has just started it's long upgrade and sustainment cycle. So their pricing will reflect this
if it's an either-or scenario.

Trump said it was a dance.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If Boeing get the nod to resurrect the F-32 with Trump in power he will have the sense of humour and trolliness to make sure it is called the "Monica". And to base a wing or two of them nearby wherever the Clinton family lives. Priceless.

 

[SpudmanWP]

"Comparable" means capable of doing the same job.

Put X number F-35s vs X number of SH in both A2A and A2G roles.

How many SHs do you need (don't forget the ISR, IFR, escort, and jamming support) to do the same job as a flight of 4 F-35s?

 

[Sundog]

I imagine the vertical takeoff mods might be expensive.... not to mention the stealth.

Rofl! That was good. It would be cool if they did reveal the full stealth version of the SH that we saw part of the pole test version in the desert.

 

[bobbymike]

It's going to be funny seeing all the "journalists" who were once very critical of the F-35 now do a 180 and defend it.

Exactly, so called adversarial journalism seems to be taking the form of "opposite to Trump no matter what we said yesterday."

I was not a fan of Trump, wasn't my first or even two through sixth choice on the GOP side but I hope this is simply signalling all defense companies to sharpen their pencils.

Would it be worthwhile to buy some more Super Hornets and even the latest F-15/16 variants while we ramp up F-35 production IF new money and nothing taking away form the F-35?

 

[sferrin]

Guarantee there will be a stampede of people getting in line to bring him up to speed on the F-35. If I were Boeing, I wouldn't start counting my chickens just yet. As soon as Trump's brought up to speed it will be business as usual. (Of course a few of the more Sr. LM suits might need to go on heart meds. in the meantime. )

 

[kcran567]

Maybe as a good businessman Trump is questioning the entire system of procurement and spending. Costs are getting unmaintainable. How far in the future is the first $500 million fighter at current trends? $750 million bomber?

 

[_Del_]

As someone who would have happily terminated the JSF program sometime ago, all the noise for the last few years is wasted effort. There is too much sunk cost, too many allies invested, congressional districts touched, and it's too close to the finish line for axing it to make any real sense. Trump knows how to make a deal-- I'm guessing the public walkaway tactic will be relatively successful for awhile. Neither Boeing or Lockheed want an extended twitter campaign making their company name synonymous with waste. Since most of the problems start on the customer side, when it comes to brass tacks it should be pretty easy to find something that saves money, makes sense, and can be presented as a win-win. I don't see how he can be this involved in every procurement process, though. Haha Like everything else, it's been pretty interesting to watch just because it is so unconventional.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Would it be worthwhile to buy some more Super Hornets and even the latest F-15/16 variants while we ramp up F-35 production IF new money and nothing taking away form the F-35?

Any money spent on anything but F-35s is a waste. Spend it on the F-35 to drive prices down and instill more trust with our Partner nations (something the CBO ignores).

Remember that for every 4th gen jet you buy instead of an F-35 will mean more needed escort, ISR, IFR, etc for those airframes. Don't forget that any new 4th gen has to go somewhere so there is no buying it in addition to F-35s. In the end the services get x number of jets, either all F-35 or a mix, and not the normal F-35 plan with extra 4th gen on top.

 

[marauder2048]

Maybe as a good businessman Trump is questioning the entire system of procurement and spending. Costs are getting unmaintainable. How far in the future is the first $500 million fighter at current trends? $750 million bomber?

I'm thrilled that he's actually met a service PEO and is trying to understand DOD acquisition.
Reform is probably impossible absent a chief executive who takes a very active role from
the outset.

 

[kaiserd]

Maybe as a good businessman Trump is questioning the entire system of procurement and spending. Costs are getting unmaintainable. How far in the future is the first $500 million fighter at current trends? $750 million bomber?

I'm thrilled that he's actually met a service PEO and is trying to understand DOD acquisition.
Reform is probably impossible absent a chief executive who takes a very active role from
the outset.

Without getting too political;
- Does anyone seriously think governance by tweet is really a good idea? Appears to be a continuing pattern of extremely superficial understanding of topics while pretending to be an expert (based on the last fringe "expert" he's spoken to).
- "Good businessman" is very much in the eye of the beholder; the casinos that lost money and the numerous bankruptcies would appear to counter this view.

The clear inferiority of the Super Hornet to the F-35 and to foreign contempories would make it an unattractive substitute for the F-35; this tweet is pure bluff but has potential to still do damage to Lockheed, the F-35 programme, US long term jobs, and the security of the US and its allies.
But as long as Trump is seen to be doing something and his ego is being reinforced....

 

[Hood]

I imagine all the aircraft manufacturers crap themselves whenever Trump goes near twitter. Wait until he starts mentioning T-X and B-21!

I feel its all either illusionary bluff to make himself look like he's trying to reign in spending but the end result is a few minor cost cuts and he takes 99.9% of the credit. The alternative is that he's just a loose cannon with no idea what he's doing at all. It looks like he's making amends to Boeing for the AF1 fiasco, probably why he didn't mention the F-22 which would have made slightly more sense.

The USAF has no choice but to go ahead now, its bigged up the whole fifth generation thing so much that Russia, China, Japan and Korea are all fighting to get into the stealthy strike-fighter platform to copy the US. It can't back out now. It's just a shame the European politicians didn't have the same foresight and drive as their forebears in the 1970s to keep the European aviation industry independent and viable in the military market. Its wasn't inevitable in the late 90s-early 00s that everyone had to jump on the JSF bandwagon. I suspect the MOD is crossing its fingers too; though losing a few squadrons of F-35s would reduce defence spending nicely for the Tories it does leave them with two rather oversized commando carriers...

 

[RyanC]

Remember that for every 4th gen jet you buy instead of an F-35 will mean more needed escort, ISR, IFR, etc for those airframes.

Buy munitions instead. Modern AAMs that aren't limited by sidewinder motor diameter (that thing goes back almost 60 years!), ever smaller, longer ranged SDBs, etc.

For example, do we really need to use GBU-27s or GBU-28s to blow up the five hardened aircraft shelters on an enemy airbase, when we can just drop scores of SDBs onto the fuel tank farm complex, and crater the runways at key locations?

 

[Avimimus]

I've argued for years that the F-35 is inappropriate for Canada, and even suggested potential corruption of the acquisitions process.

However, for the record - if I were making decisions for the USAF - purchasing the F-35 in large numbers would be the only logical choice.

 

[flateric]

#DAAISH - Destroy American Aerospace Industry S[h]oon

 

[RyanC]

Multi-ton rocks launched from lunar mass drivers.

I say we go straight to eighth-generation fighters: the ones based in space.

I like the way you think. ;D

 

[sferrin]

I've argued for years that the F-35 is inappropriate for Canada, and even suggested potential corruption of the acquisitions process.

However, for the record - if I were making decisions for the USAF - purchasing the F-35 in large numbers would be the only logical choice.

Late model Strike Eagle (maybe like the ones SA or Qatar are getting) would be my choice for Canada. Sure, they won't be completely compatible with everybody else's F-35 fleets but we'll still need bomb trucks. I'd feel sorry for their pilots though if they got tasked against some S-300/400 defended areas.

 

[fredymac]

Seems like a pattern is visible.

The dynamic here is that of a monopsony. On the one hand, a giant defense contractor with an army of lobbyists and long nurtured contacts in Congress while on the other, a fundamental market vulnerability due to generating 80% of your sales revenues from a single customer who is publicly unhappy with you.

The question as to why isn't clear. So far I haven't seen indications where Trump is going as far as weapons development and priorities are concerned. All that has been specifically confirmed is antipathy towards foreign intervention, nation building, and dysfunctional alliances where US contributions are excessive compared to putative allies. My personal guess is that Trump is snapping the leash and letting the defense industry know that he plans to examine the books and will need convincing why the numbers are where they are.

 

[sferrin]

My personal guess is that Trump is snapping the leash and letting the defense industry know that he plans to examine the books and will need convincing why the numbers are where they are.

I hope at least one of the outcomes is that the .gov gets educated on what failure means. A LOT of money is spent on CYA and "paralysis by analysis".

 

[Foo Fighter]

For example, do we really need to use GBU-27s or GBU-28s to blow up the five hardened aircraft shelters on an enemy airbase, when we can just drop ...

Multi-ton rocks launched from lunar mass drivers.

I say we go straight to eighth-generation fighters: the ones based in space.

Oh yeah? And WHAT would we do for ammunition when the rocks (politicians) run out? Granted it would be one way to reduce the expenses bill but really, WHO would we be able to blame the mess on then? I know but this is meant to be a humorous retort........Sorry, blame the time of year and a rather nice single malt.

 

[Moose]

My personal guess is that Trump is snapping the leash and letting the defense industry know that he plans to examine the books and will need convincing why the numbers are where they are.

I hope at least one of the outcomes is that the .gov gets educated on what failure means. A LOT of money is spent on CYA and "paralysis by analysis".

That's among the least likely outcomes of this tweeting nonsense. One brand of stupidity doesn't cancel out another.

 

[sferrin]

\That's among the least likely outcomes of this tweeting nonsense. One brand of stupidity doesn't cancel out another.

That's why I said, "I hope". If they actually get marching orders to find out WHY things cost so much they'll find out.

 

[Avimimus]

I've argued for years that the F-35 is inappropriate for Canada, and even suggested potential corruption of the acquisitions process.

However, for the record - if I were making decisions for the USAF - purchasing the F-35 in large numbers would be the only logical choice.

Late model Strike Eagle (maybe like the ones SA or Qatar are getting) would be my choice for Canada. Sure, they won't be completely compatible with everybody else's F-35 fleets but we'll still need bomb trucks. I'd feel sorry for their pilots though if they got tasked against some S-300/400 defended areas.

I agree. It fits traditional Canadian requirements/doctrines much better. If the STOL/MTD/ACTIVE variant had been pursued further it would be an even tighter fit due to improved abilities to operate off short & icy forward airstrips. I'm not sure about the life cycle costs though.

Despite the Canadian willingness to go 'charge of the light brigade' - I totally agree that operating with a large fleet of F-35s would help when facing S-300s. We'd be pretty useful after the first few days of the conflict though.

 

[kcran567]

But just for the sake of argument, how much has already been spent on the program, and 55 year lifetime cost of over$1.5 Trillion. Per aircraft between $148 to $337 for Navy version.

That would have paid for an overwhelming force of F-18 SHs, even an overwhelming force of "obsolete non stealthy F-15s" or at least 200 more F-22s. Some of the F-35 proponents might cry that the F-35 is the future...I call Bulls@&$!!! It's a stealthy aircraft with some new systems and software, so what! That doesn't justify its insane cost. Nothing that revolutionary, small weapons load, average range, besides, it's performance is mediocre at best. What will the losses be when encountering numbers of late model Flankers at close range?

German silver bullet wonder weapons lost WWII. It was large numbers of reasonably priced equipment that won the war.

Besides, it's not even that good looking of an aircraft, and that's the strongest argument against the F-35 yet.

Get it down to $35-45 million per aircraft or junk the program as punishment. All of these systems are getting too expensive and out of hand while corporations like LM are given a blank check.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The ROW is and has been creating advanced IADS and now 5th gan fighters. Current 4th gen is simply not affordable to support in $ or blood.

 

[kcran567]

So China and Russia throw together modest 5th Gen programs and modern air defense systems which caused us to break the bank on the F-35? Seems like they have the better strategy.


Unless the huge cost of the F-35 is actually due to $ diverted to black budget programs with some importance.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Where do you get that we're "breaking the bank"?

 

[bobbymike]

Where do you get that we're "breaking the bank"?

Agree F-35 will be around 7% of procurement and R&D budgets at its' peak and that's for a 5th generation fighter plane for all three services.

 

[Dragon029]

But just for the sake of argument, how much has already been spent on the program,

As of end of FY2017 $122 billion will have been spent on the program, as per the SAR.

and 55 year lifetime cost of over$1.5 Trillion. Per aircraft between $148 to $337 for Navy version.

60 year lifetime cost of $1.5 trillion; they extended it to 2070. You may want to be a bit more specific with what you define a "per aircraft" cost as as well; flyaway LRIP 9 jets are $102.1 (A variant) to $132.2 (C variant), and are going down roughly $6 million per LRIP.

That would have paid for an overwhelming force of F-18 SHs, even an overwhelming force of "obsolete non stealthy F-15s"

And how would those aircraft have faired? We already have Block 2B/3i F-35s dominating F/A-18s and F-15s 8:0, etc in events like Northern Lightning and operational testing / training.

Nothing that revolutionary, small weapons load, average range, besides, it's performance is mediocre at best.

You could say that about the F-16 in comparison to the F-4, yet we all know which is the far superior aircraft.

Get it down to $35-45 million per aircraft or junk the program as punishment. All of these systems are getting too expensive and out of hand while corporations like LM are given a blank check.

How about someone demonstrates the ability to get a Gripen NG, or F-16E/F, or Super Hornet, or any other modern fighter down to that pricepoint? Compared to its opponents in the market, the F-35 is a bargain.

 

[sferrin]

But just for the sake of argument, how much has already been spent on the program, and 55 year lifetime cost of over$1.5 Trillion. Per aircraft between $148 to $337 for Navy version.

That would have paid for an overwhelming force of F-18 SHs, even an overwhelming force of "obsolete non stealthy F-15s" or at least 200 more F-22s. Some of the F-35 proponents might cry that the F-35 is the future...I call Bulls@&$!!! It's a stealthy aircraft with some new systems and software, so what! That doesn't justify its insane cost. Nothing that revolutionary, small weapons load, average range, besides, it's performance is mediocre at best. What will the losses be when encountering numbers of late model Flankers at close range?

German silver bullet wonder weapons lost WWII. It was large numbers of reasonably priced equipment that won the war.

Besides, it's not even that good looking of an aircraft, and that's the strongest argument yet.

Get it down to $35-45 million per aircraft or junk the program as punishment. All of these systems are getting too expensive and out of hand while corporations like LM are given a blank check.

Judas. :

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, read that and a few things that bother me. The life expectancy is extended to what appears to me to be an arbitrary figure. How can any military or government do that with any degree of certainty? The history of military endeavour is littered with projects given a life expectancy and not living up to it. This is something used to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible. The Valiant and the Victor were expected to have huge service lives but at some point ALL of these airframes become too expensive to keep in service and are deleted. When will 1.5 trillion become 3 or 4? Since when has a strike aircraft had a 55 year service life? How can anyone state an airframe can do this? The idea of drones in this roll has receded somewhat but over the next 55 years how can anyone say this will remain the case? I cannot see the scenario suggested surviving first contact with the enemy and that is time, that and other people with their OWN developments.

 

[Dragon029]

OK, read that and a few things that bother me. The life expectancy is extended to what appears to me to be an arbitrary figure. How can any military or government do that with any degree of certainty?

Historic trends and thorough analysis, but realistically they can't.

This is something used to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible.

Or something done to seed doubt in the program; a ~50 year lifecycle cost has never been calculated on an official scale for any previous fighter; do you think Lockheed and the JPO appreciate having their project called "the trillion dollar fighter"?

Since when has a strike aircraft had a 55 year service life? How can anyone state an airframe can do this?

No individual F-35 has a 55 year service life; each jet is meant to operate for about ~30 years, flying ~250 hours a year on average. They can state the airframe's capacity to achieve such a goal by accelerated stress testing, as has been done on many other fighters. If you're simply questioning the idea that the F-35 fleet will last another 54 years, then look at the F-15; it's been in service for 40 years and is being required to operate through to the 2040s. The F-4 just had its final flight in US service after a 54 year service life.

The idea of drones in this roll has receded somewhat but over the next 55 years how can anyone say this will remain the case?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the F-35 will be regarded as a high-end fighter 50 years from now, but it'll have its roles, unless throwing away airframe flight hours is deemed cheaper than not replacing it with a 7th gen UCAV or whatever exists then. It'll be no different to how we fly Block 50 F-16Cs today.

 

[RyanC]

• Judas. :

  
  F-35 kind of did look "neat-o" back in 1995-1996 when the whole program was started.
  
  Back then to bomb a target "precisionally" meant you had to overfly it and lase the thing, which was one of the big reasons for F-117's whole rationale -- and when you looked at the F-117, it wasn't that great. It relied on guile and being where the enemy wasn't to drop LGBs, limiting it effectively to night-time only missions and in areas without heavy fighter presence.
  
  F-35 by contrast would have supersonic speed and a decent self defense capability, making it a lot more useful in dropping heavy LGBs than the F-117.
  
  Unfortunately, F-35 took so damn long to develop that the whole world changed around it.
  • JDAM (operational debut 1999)
  • SDB (operational sign off October 2006)
  • SDB-II (operational sign off May 2015)
  SDB's public specs are:
  • CEP of 5 to 8 meters
  • Penetration of 3 to 5 feet of steel reinforced concrete
  • Glide range of 50+ nautical miles at certain release altitudes
  Back in 2005; the USAF was developing a rack for the B-1/B-2 rotary launchers that could hold six SDBs each; meaning the payloads would be:
  • B-1B: 144 SDBs (6x SDB, 8x stations, 3x launchers).
  • B-2A: 96 SDBs (6x SDB, 8x stations, 2x launchers). (or just 80 x 500 lb JDAMs)
  • F-22A and F-35: 8 SDBs
  • F-15E: 20 SDBs
  • F-16: 8 to 16 SDBs[/i]
  
  Given that S-300PMU-1 (SA-20A GARGOYLE) has a (claimed) range of 65 nautical miles for the 9M96E2 missile; you can see how even really high end air defenses just got their lives made harder by cheap and cheerful guided bombs.
  
  It's very much possible now for a single squadron of F-15Es (15 aircraft roughly) to dump 300~ guided weapons onto a target -- that's more than enough weapons to saturate every single thing on an airfield worth destroying with multiple weapons, to the point that you can cripple flight operations to an extent that a few aircraft with a few Paveways in 1992 couldn't.
  
  With 100 possible aimpoints (triple targeting to assure for reliability fails, or bombs shot down in flight); you can afford to blow up individual hangars, hardpoints; specific fuel storage points, even the little shacks where the ground crew stores their bomb forklifts on an airfield with extremely high reliability.
  
  It's basically a conventional strike equivalent to a nuclear strike in it's devastating effectiveness.
  
  And before you go "intact satnav systems needed!"
  
  There are multiple independent systems now:
  • GPS (USA)
  • GLONASS (Russia)
  • Galileo (EU)
  • Baidou (China)
  • Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)
  
  Four of those Five will be global at some point.
  
  Four of those Five belong to a nuclear power, making them effectively immune; because you don't want to provoke a nuclear power into intervening in a conflict it's not involved in by doing bad things to the SatNav system they've spent a lot of time and money to put up.
  
  Right now, the biggest thing is that we have to replace nearly:
  • 1,200~ USAF Planes
  • 380~ USMC Planes
  • 310~ USN Planes
  For a total of 1,890~ tactical jets.
  
  Simply using a $70M/jet Super Horror buy vs $100M/jet F-35 cost saves $56.7B.
  
  That may not sound like a lot; but that buys alternately the following items listed for convenience:
  • 4 x CVN-78 @ $12.8B
  • 38 x DDG-51 @ 1.48B
  • 8,100 x MBTs @ 7M
  • 8 x SSBN(X) @ $6.5B
  • 91.4% of USAF Estimate of GBSD Cost
  Money is not infinite. The sooner the aviators realize this; the better; before they get replaced with super long ranged ATACMS-clones.

 

[AeroFranz]

I've always felt that the "jointness" of F-35 drove too many compromises into the design. But be that as it may, the F-35 is what we have now and based the CONOPs around.
I think that for someone to ask to price an earlier generation machine with only marginal overlap in capabilities is laughable and disingenuous. As the very first post in the thread mentioned, there is no way to cram VTOL into an F-18, so what are the Marines supposed to do with their LHAs? And this is just to mention the most obvious of a long list of problems.

So if this is just a once-in-a-while exercise in yanking the chain to keep the suppliers on their toes, fine, whatever. If this is instead the product of not having a basic grasp of how we got here, why things cost as much as they do, then we've got a problem. We can certainly use acquisition reform, but random tweets is not the way to do it. Lockheed CEO Hewson is going to pay lip service and throw Trump a bone by finding whatever real or clever accounting trick to show they're paying attention, Trump can claim victory, and move on to the next tweet.

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, read that and a few things that bother me. The life expectancy is extended to what appears to me to be an arbitrary figure. How can any military or government do that with any degree of certainty?

Historic trends and thorough analysis, but realistically they can't.

This is something used to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible.

Or something done to seed doubt in the program; a ~50 year lifecycle cost has never been calculated on an official scale for any previous fighter; do you think Lockheed and the JPO appreciate having their project called "the trillion dollar fighter"?

Since when has a strike aircraft had a 55 year service life? How can anyone state an airframe can do this?

No individual F-35 has a 55 year service life; each jet is meant to operate for about ~30 years, flying ~250 hours a year on average. They can state the airframe's capacity to achieve such a goal by accelerated stress testing, as has been done on many other fighters. If you're simply questioning the idea that the F-35 fleet will last another 54 years, then look at the F-15; it's been in service for 40 years and is being required to operate through to the 2040s. The F-4 just had its final flight in US service after a 54 year service life.

The idea of drones in this roll has receded somewhat but over the next 55 years how can anyone say this will remain the case?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the F-35 will be regarded as a high-end fighter 50 years from now, but it'll have its roles, unless throwing away airframe flight hours is deemed cheaper than not replacing it with a 7th gen UCAV or whatever exists then. It'll be no different to how we fly Block 50 F-16Cs today.

Just because SOME prior systems had a long shelf life does not mean current and future systems will. All the time these muppets are talking out of their nappy they waste billions that could have been better spent and what we see in the F-35 project is not alone, multiply it by all the other projects out there.

 

[kcran567]

I think the fact the F-35 is not really that good looking of a fighter is a valid reason to replace it. Like RyanC said, for a few years in 1996 it looked good, but now...and at that cost...?

I suspect the x-32 really was the better aircraft, and cheaper too. Except for hover and VTOL. But the design itself was simpler. Liked the original delta variant with one piece wing, sort of had a seagull shape to it.

Another lesson learned, future aircraft will have to be specialized again for their roles unless someone has breakthrough design without compromises and high cost i.e. VTOL, fighter role, effective CAS.

Maybe the air force was looking to DEW and thought the F-35 had room where lift fan was.

• Judas. :

  
  F-35 kind of did look "neat-o" back in 1995-1996 when the whole program was started.
  
  Back then to bomb a target "precisionally" meant you had to overfly it and lase the thing, which was one of the big reasons for F-117's whole rationale -- and when you looked at the F-117, it wasn't that great. It relied on guile and being where the enemy wasn't to drop LGBs, limiting it effectively to night-time only missions and in areas without heavy fighter presence.