thedrifter
10-07-06, 07:57 AM
Critics: War, price make jet a bad idea
F-35 Lightning: U.S. enemies use suicide vests and homemade bombs; and besides, $112M per plane is way over budget
By Matthew D. LaPlante
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/07/2006 02:01:36 AM MDT
It was to be an elixir for all the military's air woes, a catalyst for international defense cooperation and, best of all, an affordable way to maintain air superiority for decades to come.
But with the bar set so high, the Joint Strike Fighter has yet to prove its worth. And even now that locations for three operational squadrons have been named - including one at Hill Air Force Base - questions remain and costs continue to rise.
Some military analysts contend the costs and questions are but speed bumps for the supersonic fighter. But it's possible, other defense experts say, that the Air Force's next-generation fighter jet, at $112 million a copy, is the wrong weapon at the wrong price.
Buying Lightning: The joint fighter dream began in 1992, when U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force officials initiated planning for development of a common aircraft that would fit each service's needs. By the time prototype development contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin and Boeing in 1996, the Navy had come aboard - seeking a replacement for its decades-old, carrier-based jet fighters. British interest in the program also was growing.
One of the most enchanting attributes for each interested party was cost. Developers estimated each jet would cost about $30 million to build.
"The key objective of the Joint Strike Fighter acquisition strategy is affordability," Louis Rodrigues, Government Accountability Office director of defense acquisition issues, wrote in a report to the House Subcommittee on National Security in May 2000.
At that time, the GAO had been told, Lockheed - whose F-35 design beat out the Boeing-made contender - planned to begin delivering the plane by 2008.
"As currently planned," Rodrigues wrote, "the program will cost about $200 billion to develop and procure over 3,000 aircraft."
That would amount to nearly $60 million per aircraft. In half a decade, the cost of each plane had doubled.
In the next five years the cost would nearly double again. By the time the plane had been given a name - defense experts baptized it "Lightning II" earlier this year - congressional researchers had concluded that, with research and development costs included, each plane would cost $112 million.
A new war: Even as the F-35 program was increasing in time, cost and scope, the nature of warfare was changing.
Military strategists were already questioning the usefulness of Cold War-era weapon platforms, such as submarines and jet fighters, before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. After the attacks, with the nation's military embarked upon a "long war" against terrorism, the role of such weapons was further challenged.
While the rout of Iraq's military in the spring of 2003 reaffirmed the U.S. military's dominance in traditional warfare, subsequent problems battling insurgencies and foiling civil war have shown that, in so-called "asymmetric" conflicts, ownership of big and expensive weapons didn't buy military supremacy.
In fact, defense expert John Pike believes, the conflicts in which the United States currently is engaged could be waged without jet fighters such as those the Lightning II has been designed to replace.
"The war we're fighting right now is basically a bomb-dropping war," Pike said.
And while planes like the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet and Air Force's F-16 Falcon - two models that will be replaced by the Lightning II - have been mainstays in the skies above Iraq and Afghanistan, Pike said it is reasonable to believe that, in the near future, those jets' missions could be replaced by bombers and drones.
Cheaper, quieter and infinitely safer for operators, the military's various drones are able to conduct reconnaissance, drop bombs and fire missiles. Dozens of drone models have been created - some with the capacity to carry payloads nearing 2,000 pounds and the ability to stay above a potential target for nearly two days straight.
Flying solo: Responding in part to Northrop Grumman's apparent dominance of the military drone market, Lockheed executives dropped a bomb of their own earlier this year.
The F-35, company executives theorized as recently as August, could be designed as an unmanned aerial vehicle - and at a savings of millions of dollars to the U.S. government.
A Lockheed official on Friday distanced his company from those suggestions.
"People are constantly, constantly looking down the road many years for future potential applications of things," said the defense company's F-35 spokesman, John Smith. "Right now, we're putting together a manned F-35."
Pike said he expects Lockheed will get the go-ahead to put manned Lightning II's into production, a move that - pending an environmental impact study - would result in Hill obtaining a war-fighting squadron of the planes sometime after 2009. But, the defense expert said, he believes Lockheed will, ultimately, be making the F-35 as a drone.
"There will come a day when they will come down the production line and say 'This is the last one with a cockpit - from here on out, they're all robots,' '' Pike said. "I think they'll then take the ones built with cockpits back to the factory and have them replaced."
The economics of such a move makes it too tempting not to do, he said. Robots won't need to train, meaning planes won't need as much upkeep, meaning air wings won't need as many mechanics.
"And so on," Pike said. "The head count over at the wing might go from 5,000 to 200."
And that, he said, makes the long-term promise of a Lightning II wing less economically promising.
Loren Thompson, who taught military strategy at Georgetown University and was a one-time critic of the F-35 program, disagrees that the Lightning II will be turned into a drone, saying automation of a fighter jet's controls is impossible.
"A plane will operate best with a pilot inside of it," he said. "Aircraft that do not have pilots will always be vulnerable to those which do."
But Thompson still doesn't believe the Air Force's Lightning II fleet will be nearly as extensive as some have envisioned. He expects that hundreds fewer than the Air Force's original order of nearly 1,700 will be built - a decision that may increase the cost per plane once again.
Try before you buy: But even more than cost, critics of the Lightning II program have expressed grave reservations over how the U.S. military has chosen to buy its new birds.
Windslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, said the military has erred in ignoring the "fly before you buy" principle it employed when it selected the F-16 years ago.
"I'm very pessimistic that this airplane will live up to its promise," Wheeler said. He said the Lightning II is still a prototype subject to tests, which are likely to find "all kinds of problems."
Federal auditors share Wheeler's concerns. A Government Accountability Office report, released in March, strongly urged the Defense Department to slow down its acquisition of the Lightning II until more testing of the jet was complete.
As planned, the report warned, the military will have spent more than $60 billion on 126 planes before it has even completed half of the aircraft's necessary flight tests.
The report called that strategy "too risky."
mlaplante@sltrib.com
---
* Tribune reporter ROBERT GEHRKE contributed to this story.
Air power
* Designed to replace the aging F-16 Falcon, the F-35 Lightning is expected to be a front-line weapons system for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. It was created to hit ground targets without being detected, while also having air-to-air combat capabilities.
Upside:
* Training and maintenance for the F-35 Lightning - expected to be produced in the thousands and delivered to three service branches and multiple other countries - may be centralized, decreasing costs.
* The "fifth-generation" fighters turn pilots into battle-space managers, allowing one aviator to fight multiple enemies.
* With its F-16 Falcons destined for decommissioning, Hill Air Force Base as a Lightning base would keep the Utah facility viable for years to come.
Downside:
* Government researchers say the price of each aircraft now exceeds $112 million - making the procurement of thousands less likely. Government auditors, meanwhile, worry that technical problems will further increase the costs.
* The Cold War has long since passed. The U.S. owns unquestioned and unprecedented air dominance over all potential enemies. And the nation's current enemies fight with makeshift bombs and suicide vests, not jet fighters.
* Lockheed officials have suggested - and some defense experts believe - the Lightning eventually will be built only as a drone. For Hill, the economic benefits of a squadron of drones aren't nearly the same as those involved in hosting pilots, who need many more hours in the air to become battle ready.
* No one in the Air Force has flown this plane. Critics say they are concerned that the U.S. military has committed to the most expensive program in the military without testing out the goods.
Ellie
F-35 Lightning: U.S. enemies use suicide vests and homemade bombs; and besides, $112M per plane is way over budget
By Matthew D. LaPlante
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/07/2006 02:01:36 AM MDT
It was to be an elixir for all the military's air woes, a catalyst for international defense cooperation and, best of all, an affordable way to maintain air superiority for decades to come.
But with the bar set so high, the Joint Strike Fighter has yet to prove its worth. And even now that locations for three operational squadrons have been named - including one at Hill Air Force Base - questions remain and costs continue to rise.
Some military analysts contend the costs and questions are but speed bumps for the supersonic fighter. But it's possible, other defense experts say, that the Air Force's next-generation fighter jet, at $112 million a copy, is the wrong weapon at the wrong price.
Buying Lightning: The joint fighter dream began in 1992, when U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force officials initiated planning for development of a common aircraft that would fit each service's needs. By the time prototype development contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin and Boeing in 1996, the Navy had come aboard - seeking a replacement for its decades-old, carrier-based jet fighters. British interest in the program also was growing.
One of the most enchanting attributes for each interested party was cost. Developers estimated each jet would cost about $30 million to build.
"The key objective of the Joint Strike Fighter acquisition strategy is affordability," Louis Rodrigues, Government Accountability Office director of defense acquisition issues, wrote in a report to the House Subcommittee on National Security in May 2000.
At that time, the GAO had been told, Lockheed - whose F-35 design beat out the Boeing-made contender - planned to begin delivering the plane by 2008.
"As currently planned," Rodrigues wrote, "the program will cost about $200 billion to develop and procure over 3,000 aircraft."
That would amount to nearly $60 million per aircraft. In half a decade, the cost of each plane had doubled.
In the next five years the cost would nearly double again. By the time the plane had been given a name - defense experts baptized it "Lightning II" earlier this year - congressional researchers had concluded that, with research and development costs included, each plane would cost $112 million.
A new war: Even as the F-35 program was increasing in time, cost and scope, the nature of warfare was changing.
Military strategists were already questioning the usefulness of Cold War-era weapon platforms, such as submarines and jet fighters, before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. After the attacks, with the nation's military embarked upon a "long war" against terrorism, the role of such weapons was further challenged.
While the rout of Iraq's military in the spring of 2003 reaffirmed the U.S. military's dominance in traditional warfare, subsequent problems battling insurgencies and foiling civil war have shown that, in so-called "asymmetric" conflicts, ownership of big and expensive weapons didn't buy military supremacy.
In fact, defense expert John Pike believes, the conflicts in which the United States currently is engaged could be waged without jet fighters such as those the Lightning II has been designed to replace.
"The war we're fighting right now is basically a bomb-dropping war," Pike said.
And while planes like the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet and Air Force's F-16 Falcon - two models that will be replaced by the Lightning II - have been mainstays in the skies above Iraq and Afghanistan, Pike said it is reasonable to believe that, in the near future, those jets' missions could be replaced by bombers and drones.
Cheaper, quieter and infinitely safer for operators, the military's various drones are able to conduct reconnaissance, drop bombs and fire missiles. Dozens of drone models have been created - some with the capacity to carry payloads nearing 2,000 pounds and the ability to stay above a potential target for nearly two days straight.
Flying solo: Responding in part to Northrop Grumman's apparent dominance of the military drone market, Lockheed executives dropped a bomb of their own earlier this year.
The F-35, company executives theorized as recently as August, could be designed as an unmanned aerial vehicle - and at a savings of millions of dollars to the U.S. government.
A Lockheed official on Friday distanced his company from those suggestions.
"People are constantly, constantly looking down the road many years for future potential applications of things," said the defense company's F-35 spokesman, John Smith. "Right now, we're putting together a manned F-35."
Pike said he expects Lockheed will get the go-ahead to put manned Lightning II's into production, a move that - pending an environmental impact study - would result in Hill obtaining a war-fighting squadron of the planes sometime after 2009. But, the defense expert said, he believes Lockheed will, ultimately, be making the F-35 as a drone.
"There will come a day when they will come down the production line and say 'This is the last one with a cockpit - from here on out, they're all robots,' '' Pike said. "I think they'll then take the ones built with cockpits back to the factory and have them replaced."
The economics of such a move makes it too tempting not to do, he said. Robots won't need to train, meaning planes won't need as much upkeep, meaning air wings won't need as many mechanics.
"And so on," Pike said. "The head count over at the wing might go from 5,000 to 200."
And that, he said, makes the long-term promise of a Lightning II wing less economically promising.
Loren Thompson, who taught military strategy at Georgetown University and was a one-time critic of the F-35 program, disagrees that the Lightning II will be turned into a drone, saying automation of a fighter jet's controls is impossible.
"A plane will operate best with a pilot inside of it," he said. "Aircraft that do not have pilots will always be vulnerable to those which do."
But Thompson still doesn't believe the Air Force's Lightning II fleet will be nearly as extensive as some have envisioned. He expects that hundreds fewer than the Air Force's original order of nearly 1,700 will be built - a decision that may increase the cost per plane once again.
Try before you buy: But even more than cost, critics of the Lightning II program have expressed grave reservations over how the U.S. military has chosen to buy its new birds.
Windslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, said the military has erred in ignoring the "fly before you buy" principle it employed when it selected the F-16 years ago.
"I'm very pessimistic that this airplane will live up to its promise," Wheeler said. He said the Lightning II is still a prototype subject to tests, which are likely to find "all kinds of problems."
Federal auditors share Wheeler's concerns. A Government Accountability Office report, released in March, strongly urged the Defense Department to slow down its acquisition of the Lightning II until more testing of the jet was complete.
As planned, the report warned, the military will have spent more than $60 billion on 126 planes before it has even completed half of the aircraft's necessary flight tests.
The report called that strategy "too risky."
mlaplante@sltrib.com
---
* Tribune reporter ROBERT GEHRKE contributed to this story.
Air power
* Designed to replace the aging F-16 Falcon, the F-35 Lightning is expected to be a front-line weapons system for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. It was created to hit ground targets without being detected, while also having air-to-air combat capabilities.
Upside:
* Training and maintenance for the F-35 Lightning - expected to be produced in the thousands and delivered to three service branches and multiple other countries - may be centralized, decreasing costs.
* The "fifth-generation" fighters turn pilots into battle-space managers, allowing one aviator to fight multiple enemies.
* With its F-16 Falcons destined for decommissioning, Hill Air Force Base as a Lightning base would keep the Utah facility viable for years to come.
Downside:
* Government researchers say the price of each aircraft now exceeds $112 million - making the procurement of thousands less likely. Government auditors, meanwhile, worry that technical problems will further increase the costs.
* The Cold War has long since passed. The U.S. owns unquestioned and unprecedented air dominance over all potential enemies. And the nation's current enemies fight with makeshift bombs and suicide vests, not jet fighters.
* Lockheed officials have suggested - and some defense experts believe - the Lightning eventually will be built only as a drone. For Hill, the economic benefits of a squadron of drones aren't nearly the same as those involved in hosting pilots, who need many more hours in the air to become battle ready.
* No one in the Air Force has flown this plane. Critics say they are concerned that the U.S. military has committed to the most expensive program in the military without testing out the goods.
Ellie