The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has drawn criticism once again, this time, from President Elect Donald Trump.
The incoming president took to Twitter to voice his concerns about the high costs associated with the development of the F-35, which is on track to become the most expensive weapons system in human history by a wide margin. Current predictions place the program’s overall cost to be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion.
Trump did not explain whether or not he intends to make changes to the existing F-35 program or if the Lockheed Martin effort will be scrapped under his administration, stating only, “The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.”
The 2017 Department of Defense budget that was released earlier this year calls for $10.1 billion in F-35 spending in 2017 alone, which should outfit the Air Force with forty-three jets, sixteen for the Marine Corps and four for the Navy. The Joint Strike Fighter is intended to replace a number of different aging platforms, including the workhorse A-10 Warthog, which has been in use since 1977.
Trump also called out Boeing via Twitter last week, citing “out of control” costs for their new Air Force One fleet currently being developed. The President Elect went on to urge the federal government to “cancel the order.”
Republican Senator John McCain agreed with Trump’s take on the exorbitant costs associated with the problem-ridden F-35, but made it clear that the president will not be able to cancel the program that has already been funded.
“He can reduce the buy over time, next year, as we look at it again,” McCain told Reuters.
Other experts agree that Trump will be unable to simply turn off the flow of funds into Lockheed’s bank accounts, but his stance on the platform could usher in a new age in defense spending that requires more shared risk than the existing “blank check” approach utilized by the government in the development of the F-35.
“Unwinding a program of this size, involving contractors in nearly every state and eight partner nations, is highly unlikely,” Peter Arment, analyst at Baird Equity Research, wrote Monday. “But what is likely … is the message to the industry of potentially more risk-sharing on costs. This is potentially a new paradigm for the industry.”
Issues with the F-35 have created costly retrofits and slowed production, greatly increasing the per-plane cost associated with the aircraft. In August, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational testing, released a memo stating the aircraft was on track to “fail to deliver” on its promise to be the future of military aviation, going on to say that “achieving full combat capability with the Joint Strike Fighter is at substantial risk.”
Roger Cabiness, a spokesman for the Department of Defense provided more detail into the content of the memo, explaining that it “provides details of significant performance problems that must be corrected for the Joint Strike Fighter to achieve full combat capability, as well as concerns that the program likely lacks the resources needed to correct those problems consistent with beginning operational testing in 2018.”
In September, the Air Force grounded its existing fleet of F-35s after discovering peeling and crumbling insulation in the aircraft’s avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks. A total of fifty-seven already built F-35s were forced to undergo repairs before being brought back into flight status.
“We welcome the opportunity to address any questions the president-elect has about the program,” said Jeff Babione, Lockheed’s general manager for the F-35 program. “We understand the importance of affordability and that’s what the F-35 has been about.”
Aerospace Industries Association, an industry trade group with a stake in the F-35’s success, met with Trump’s transition team on Monday. After the meeting, spokesmen from the group expressed confidence that they would be able to address the concerns of the incoming president regarding the program.
Current plans call for 2,400 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be purchased by the United States as replacements for many combat jets currently in use. Production of the fighter spans across forty-five states and employs tens of thousands, making it extremely unlikely any president could garner enough support to do away with the program within Congress.
Byron Callan, financial analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, sent a note to investors in Lockheed not to fear, despite Trump’s recent Tweets: “We strongly doubt that Trump has been fully informed of the F-35 program or alternatives to modernize U.S. tactical aircraft inventories. As well, we strongly doubt that he has been informed of the unique international nature of the program.”
He added: “We don’t believe investors should panic over the program’s prospects based on a single Trump tweet.”
Image courtesy of the U.S. Air Force
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
Broken chains of command, politicians micro-managing the military, which particular weapons system/platform to pick over another, the VA, whether or not to employ US military force in various world affairs/conflicts - there's still a myriad of them. So don't worry about having nothing left to discuss...lol
I always liked "if all the snowflakes were candy bars and milkshakes"...but that's 'cause it involves standing outside with my mouth open wide to catch the snowflakes. ;-) "we likely would be having the same discussion about another derailed or unnecessary defense program" .....so, so true. There seems to be an endless supply to legitimately gripe about, and what seems to work for one, er, conflict, doesn't usually work out so well for another. If all our guys had functioning weapons, vehicles, systems and equipment for every new conflict, what would we have left to talk about?
"If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts," as my father used to always tell me. If the F-35 was even within the ballpark of its targets - development goals and costs, testing goals and costs, contribution to the Joint Force (e.g. its combat effectiveness), and acquisition costs and timeline - then we likely would be having the same discussion about another derailed or unnecessary defense program. The DDG-1000 DDGs (I refuse to refer to it as the Zumwalt-class, out of respect for the man's legacy), LRLAP munitions, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Ford-class CVNs, the B-21 Raider, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) - the list goes on and on. Even "successful" programs like the development of the M1 Abrams MBTs are often surrounded in controversies of purposefully manipulated or farcical testing results (with the Abrams, a reliability requirement was lowered AFTER a test in order to allow the design to pass). The defense industry needs to be disrupted, something I am hoping will occur through a range of new initiatives and the development of new technologies that lower the barrier to entry (e.g. 3D printing which, for example, could prove a game changer in lowering the costs of replacement parts for small arms or a warship's internal piping). One such disruptive effort I've been following closely is the "Hacking 4 Defense" initiative at Stanford University, which is seeking to expand to dozens of other universities in the near future (though, sadly, not at my alma mater, UC Berkeley, given the hyper liberals' disdain for anything military. A real shame given that Berkeley is a bigger feeder for Silicon Valley than Stanford): http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu/ I also have hope for the Defense Innovation Unit - Experimental ( https://www.diux.mil/ ) and the Strategic Capabilities Office, as well as the longer standing Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (formerly JIEDDO) and, of course, DARPA.
I think the "sweet" spot sounds fabulously ideal, but in our bureaucratic reality, if the F-35 was living up to it's promised potential, how much you wanna bet we'd pay the expensive price tag without asking very many questions about how much it actually costs to build them and whether we can get cheaper (quality) parts and people to (capably) put them all together if we just shopped around for the best bargains? I agree about the blank check...except for the "if" part, since our government tends to sign them with nauseating frequency (and for much more than just defense spending.) I don't know the best solution, but what you say sounds reasonable enough and makes more sense than pouring more money into a black hole and hoping it all eventually works out somehow.
This thing needs to die. Interim solutions: (1) Truncate/cancel F-35 orders, except the F-35B for the Marines (which they need because of the STOVL capability), and hold Lockheed accountable, (2) buy more E/A-18G Growlers, and encourage rapid development of other 4th Gen strike aircraft packages - using the Growler's EW package as the foundation - for the F-16 and F-15, (3) Focus on maximizing the networking capabilities of the F-22, F-35 (the reduced number that will exist), and unmanned drones for use as fire control/target designation platforms. Drones and strategic bombers (B-52s) can also serve as missile/bomb "trucks" for artificially expanding a strike aircraft's weapons magazine (this is already in development) Long-term solutions: (1) Prioritize the development of a more advanced long range air-to-air missile (the AIM-120 is basically maxed performance-wise, and both China and Russia have air-to-air missiles, albeit not yet the C4ISR network to properly guide them), (2) Prioritize the development of an unmanned strike aircraft (which can do everything in a dogfight except autonomously make the decision to fire), (3) continue development of two 6th Generation designs, one for the USAF and one for the Navy. Focus on modular technological packages (e.g. radar/sensor suite, network, stealth coatings, engine, etc.) that can be used for across all three programs (the unmanned strike aircraft and both proposed 6th Gen fighter programs). Done. Kill the F-35 and use some of the remaining money to achieve the above.