The U.S Military’s Trillion-Dollar Boondoggle

[Straight Shooter]

Most Americans missed the news of two pairs of Russian Tupolev Tu-95 bombers that attempted to breach American airspace on the West Coast on the Fourth of July. The first incident occurred near Alaska, and the second the central Californian coast; the bombers were intercepted and escorted out of American airspace by F-22 and F-15 fighter planes.

Commenting on the incident, Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerny told The Washington Free Beacon: “it’s becoming obvious that Putin is testing Obama and his national security team.” The relevant question, though, to ask isn’t why Putin is attempting a banal revival of Cold War tensions — games of chicken between Russia and the West are no new thing, and Putin himself is far from inscrutable — but why the F-15 and F-22 planes played roles in the response.

Granted, the F-15 Eagle is considered one of the best fighter planes in history. In the time that it’s been flying, it has racked up 100 aerial combat victories, has supplied U.S. allies around the world, and is expected to be in use past the year 2025. But it was designed in the 1960s and first flew in 1972; it’s more than a bit past its prime.

The F-22 was created as its replacement in the early 2000s. By many accounts, the Raptor is a fantastic plane; the Air Force claims it “cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft.” But again, the aircraft isn’t perfect. Some of the more shocking safety allegations point to correlations with mental deficiencies, respiratory complications and neurological problems among its pilots. It’s also very, very expensive — about $150 million per plane. That doesn’t include the entire program development cost, either. It’s because of the steadily growing price tag that production on F-22s is currently halted.

The Raptor is emblematic of a long decline in the usefulness and cost efficiency of Air Force technology since the prime of the Cold War. The F-35 Lightning II multirole stealth fighter plane, the most expensive weapons system in the history of the planet, marks this trajectory’s nadir; mention of the plane in military circles usually has the term “boondoggle” following closely on its heel. The government spent $59 billion on development, $261 billion on procurement, and $590 billion for “operations and sustainment” of the F-35 in 2012. It still wasn’t ready to save us from the Russians on the Fourth of July.

An account of the F-35 failing to best the F-16 fighter in a mock-dogfight, published by Medium’s “War Is Boring” blog, suggests one reason why: It’s simply not meant to mix it up. The article emphasizes that the F-35’s best option in the test was to basically retreat; an allegation that received pushback from Lockheed Martin, which claimed that the F-35 isn’t made to engage in an old fashioned dogfight.

The F-35 “aren’t made so much to win dogfights with lesser planes as to blast them out of the sky from afar — before a visual combat situation has begun,” The American Interest reports. It’s unclear whether or not the plane can actually do that, since it gives off a massive heat signature, which might allow other planes to see it first. Regardless, the F-35 wasn’t built to engage in close combat to begin with, which might not make it ideal for intercepting Russian bombers (which could always possibly be accompanied by fighters themselves) and escorting them back into neutral air space.

What’s more, technical issues with the plane’s machinery persist despite the billions of dollars that were sunk into the F-35 since 2009. Its weapons delivery system is prone to tracking false targets because of software issues. The plane can’t fly within 25 miles of a storm. The pilot helmet display doesn’t work. The plane requires massive amounts of maintenance, far beyond anything predicted. It’s simply unsafe and unreliable. But it’s still successful within the demented logic of defense acquisition procedure: It makes massive amounts of money for contractors, subcontractors, investors, Congressmen and Department of Defense procurement officers. Performance is secondary; safety is practically an afterthought. The primary goal of military tech programs is to spin public money into private profit.

If the Pentagon were held to the same standards as the United States Post Office, the chorus of disgruntled conservatives would have long ago hit a crescendo. Part of the problem is that we want a military that can do everything, without going through the trouble of triaging our priorities or limiting our goals.

The recently released National Military Strategy lists America’s main enemies as China, Russia, Iran, violent extremists and so on, each requiring a different strategic approach (and the corresponding equipment) to defeat. That’s expensive. But, as the F-35 project shows, with subcontracts from 45 different states and its construction accounting for over 32,000 jobs, our real strategy is to emphasize the “industry” in defense industry.

The F-35 thus represents the current rationale animating modern American defense technology procurement. It prioritizes the transfer of vast amounts of public wealth into private hands, regardless of whether the product actually works.

So in a sense, it’s nice that the Russians are poking us, keeping us on our toes on a holiday weekend. Maybe we can get a new multi-billion dollar defense program out of it.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/the-american-militarys-trillion-dollar-boondoggle.html

Less than 1% of the American population is active military personnel. In an America connected to the military, spending $1.5 trillion would be questioned. If the IRS or some other government agency spent $1.5 trillion it would make headline news. We don't insist on accountability with the military the same way we do with other government agencies. We can say that we "support" and "respect" the troops but the fact is we as a country are not involved with the less than 1% who fight our wars. It's this disengagement that leads to dangerous decisions that the public hardly notices.

Hopefully we can get a healthy discussion here about the military and the civilian-military gap

 

[sean miguel]

The F-35 “aren’t made so much to win dogfights with lesser planes as to blast them out of the sky from afar — before a visual combat situation has begun,”

That right there should be the death knell to the program. The same was said about the F-4 Phantom when it first went into service in Vietnam. It didn't come with an integral gun because it could rely on it's sophisticated air-to-air missiles. Real life quickly changed that opinion.

Also, the F-35 isn't able to land vertically like it was designed to because the exhaust melts most surfaces it would be required to land on.

But if there's a silver lining, China will have an even shittier plane when they copy it.

 

[Straight Shooter]

That right there should be the death knell to the program. The same was said about the F-4 Phantom when it first went into service in Vietnam. It didn't come with an integral gun because it could rely on it's sophisticated air-to-air missiles. Real life quickly changed that opinion.

Also, the F-35 isn't able to land vertically like it was designed to because the exhaust melts most surfaces it would be required to land on.

But if there's a silver lining, China will have an even shittier plane when they copy it.

"But, as the F-35 project shows, with subcontracts from 45 different states and its construction accounting for over 32,000 jobs, our real strategy is to emphasize the “industry” in defense industry."

Therein lies the problem, DOD has become a jobs program.

 

[Jagger69]

Great reference, Ice. And Fox's retrospective point about the F-4 is spot on....an obsolete aircraft from the day it was built. The F-35 is a total boondoggle, white elephant, whatever you want to call it. At least they finally got the Osprey to assume a practical application....even though it isn't a fighter. There will never be a replacement for pilot skill and dogfighting maneuverability with a tactical fighter plane. That's why drones are never going to supplant fighters....you need the human element to create illogical and unanticipated diversion and surprise. Computer logic is way too predictable. Incredible waste of the military budget approved with very weak oversight on the government's behalf. Your tax dollars at waste.

Ice, I'd rep you if the Freeones rep police would let me. :thumbsup:

Maybe the strategy is to entice the Russians to reverse-engineer it like they did with the F-15 and the MIG-35. :dunno: :1orglaugh

 

[Jagger69]

Not to mention them splashing the Raptor. Maybe we can bankrupt the Russian military budget by forcing them to continuously copy our mistakes.

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/sukhoi-t-50-pak-fa-a-copy-of-the-us-f-22.html

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I've never understood the need to replace aircraft that perform well. The f-16, the a-10, av-8b, the hornet and the tomcat all exceeded performance expectations. The B-52 is a god damned American treasure and it's been flying for sixty years. Oh, and the f-15. I don't want to leave a quality aircraft out.

Maybe it's my time in the Corps and being forced to make do with equipment designed by the lowest bidder and handed down from army surplus, but I can't see the need for new stuff just because it's shinier and maybe does one or two things marginally better than a tried and true platform.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Indeed, it could be argued that the biggest threat the U.S. military faces over the next few decades is not the carrier-killing Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, or the proliferation of inexpensive quiet diesel-electric attack subs, or even Chinese and Russian anti-satellite programs. The biggest threat comes from the F-35 — a plane that is being projected to suck up 1.5 trillion precious defense dollars. For this trillion-dollar-plus investment we get a plane far slower than a 1970s F-14 Tomcat, a plane with less than half the range of a 40-year-old A-6 Intruder, a plane whose sustained-turn performance is that of a 1960s F-4 Phantom, and a plane that had its head handed to it by an F-16 during a recent dogfight competition. The problem is not just hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on the F-35; it is also about not having that money to spend on programs that would give us a far bigger bang for the buck.

Great piece on this in the conservative National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421473/f-35-defense-waste-danger

 

[D-rock]

While they talk about how the plane can engage it's opponents well before they are in visual range and dogfighting isn't that important, what happens when other countries get around to developing their own stealth aircraft in numbers (and eventually they will) and neither sides planes can detect the others before they get in close? Not to mention as long as the planes create a wake when they move through the air and create heat from their engines they can be detected, and as technology gets better they will be better detected baring eliminating those above aspects which would take a whole other very gigantic leaps in scientific advancement. It will get even worse if SAMs can start tracking them better given that lack of power will just make them an even easier target.

I also have to wonder about them talking about updating the software to make it better, because unless they have been really dramatically dialing down the engines their is just no way software is going to improve things like raw power, power/weight ratio, or the structural soundness of the aircraft's materials. I would have to shake the hands of any software engineer that could accomplish that. :1orglaugh

Maybe they should have never tried to make a jack of all trades plane or invested so much on a stealth fleet and just made a fifth generation plane that could hall ass, turn, fire at better and further, and go farther than any other planes we might face while having easier maintenance and retiring the old planes that are getting harder to keep repaired, and left stealth to dedicated stealth aircraft when they were needed. It would probably have been cheaper, and lessened the chance of getting a plane that might not be good at anything in the future.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Joint Strike Fighter ITF ground testing F-35 gun

source: http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123454036

7/22/2015 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Test Force is in the process of testing the F-35A's newest munitions asset - the GAU-22/A. The gun is a four-barrel Gatling gun that fires 25 millimeter rounds.

Unlike the Marine Corps and Navy variants, the GAU-22/A is integrated internally to the F-35A. In the other variants, the gun is mounted to the outside as a pod. A similar weapon, GAU-12, has been used on the AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet.

The first phase of testing started June 9, when the first shots were fired from tail number AF-2 on the ground at the Edwards Gun Harmonizing Range. The test team hopes to finish ground testing sometime during August and start the airborne phase late September. An operational gun capability will be added with a future block of software, which is in the beginning stages of testing at Edwards.

The tests are done using a target practice round, PGU-23/U, which fires from the gun, but does not explode on impact.

The tricky part about this test phase is that the gun will never operationally fire on the ground. To conduct the test, they have to use software to bypass interlocks and "fool the aircraft to make it think it's in the air."

"As an Air Force pilot, it's going to be one more thing that I can select to either strafe air-to-ground targets or shoot as an air-to-air weapon," said Maj. Andrew Rollins, 461st Flight Test Squadron, assistant director of operations.

Rollins is the test pilot on the project. While deployed, Rollins "used a gun often." He said it's particularly useful in an air-to-ground role when enemy targets are in a close proximity to friendlies and dropping a bomb is not prudent.

"The GAU-22/A uses a 25mm shell, which is significantly more powerful than what I've been used to in legacy aircraft, the F-16 the F-15E, F-15C - all those aircraft use a 20mm shell," said Rollins.

Integrating a weapon into the aircraft is not in itself unique. But what does make this project special is that it's being integrated into a stealth platform. In legacy aircraft, the gun fires through a hole in the outer molding. In this case, to keep the jet hidden from radar signatures, the gun will be kept behind closed doors until the trigger is engaged.

The ground tests with AF-2 are designed to answer questions like; does the gun door open correctly? Does the gun spin up and down correctly? Does the air flow through the vent and is it adequate to clear the flammable gasses?

Prior to testing the integration of the GAU-22/A into the F-35A, the gun itself was tested as a standalone. It was also flown during test points without firing to ensure that the flight envelope would not overstress the gun mounts. Preparing for the ground gun fire tests in the jet took roughly six months.

AF-2, a highly modified flight sciences aircraft, underwent four months of instrumentation modifications and had a line production gun installed for this project.

Tiffany Krogstad, Lockheed Martin AF-2 flight test engineer, said that the AF-2 is normally a "scientist aircraft" executing loads and buffet testing.

"[AF-2] is the only aircraft in the world that can get us this data," said Rollins. "It's been highly instrumented in order to get us the information we need to proceed to the next test point and ultimately to get the gun to its full envelope."

As the test conductor, Krogstad and her team are monitoring the gun's performance and ensuring all the systems work as designed. She is especially concerned with making sure the jet can withstand the loads of a firing gun and the gun operates as expected. Since AF-2 is a flight sciences aircraft, it does not have all the missionized systems of full-line production aircraft. The gun will be further tested with a line production jet sometime next year for full integration.

"When we hand [the gun] off to the next aircraft to test full integration with the full avionics and mission systems capabilities, we'll rest easy knowing that we did what we could to make sure that their test won't have those issues," said Krogstad.

Rollins on the other hand is looking at it from a test pilot's perspective, evaluating the gun's effects on the aircraft's handling qualities.

"By the time we get airborne, we're hoping that our extensive preparation during planning, ground tests and airborne tests will eliminate every variable except for those associated with flight since flying will be the most demanding phase of this testing," said Rollins. "While we'll be targeting very specific objectives, the pilot will also be observing more qualitative effects such as muzzle flash, human factors, and flying qualities."

During the airborne tests, they will watch for the potential effects of having the gun mounted internally, like vibrations, acoustics and airflow.

To evaluate the gun's performance, the test team is made up of personnel from the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and Northrop Grumman. They are performing duties as engineers, pilots, maintainers, Edwards weapons loading crews, and gun subject matter experts from Fort Worth, Texas.

"Like any of the testing Edwards AFB does, we are managing all of the risk involved with this test," said Rollins. "When we sign it off and go hand it to the warfighter, they can go out and pull the trigger throughout the entire gun envelope and know that the aircraft is going to function properly. It's not going to flameout, it's not going to overheat, it's not going to over G, and it's going to hit the target."

I don't know much about guns on fighters but I read that this gun fires rounds at a rate of 55 rounds per second. Since it only holds a 220 round magazine, that's about 4 seconds worth of firing time. Doesn't sound that impressive, or am I wrong? :dunno: