I agree it has certainly be debated, and most important for discussion here at SOH, I agree that it's not a topic worthy to go down.
So, as you said, back on topic ...
I have what I think is a wider picture on the issue of defense acquisitions and programs. I posted a series of historical comparison points in a previous, but recent thread that strove to portray a larger point.
To be relevant, military programs have to be revolutionary.
To be profitable, private programs have to be evolutionary.
This means that cost overruns are a given certainty whenever one is dealing with a revolutionary military program. The F-35 is among the most revolutionary we have seen in decades. In terms of integration of all fifth generation technologies, it expands the bar further, but adds complexities of joint design requirements at work concurrently.
As I said earlier in this thread, I would not read the tea leaves that the Dutch pull out represents a pending death knell of the program. In fact, I am confident the RAF will stay onboard. It is also entirely possible that whatever orders the Dutch were going to take could be more than offset by such options as the Japanese Self Defense Air Force and the Indian Air Force.
The North Koreans just torpedoed and sank a South Korean naval frigate operating in international waters! I am very confident the Japanese were paying keen attention! They want a fifth generation fighter, and the multi-role nature of the F-35 would be a wise option for them.
If I were a continental European nation perhaps I might decide against the added costs of the F-35 as a rational decision relative to my expected threats. You don't need an F-35 to support operations like those in Afghanistan (where the Dutch Air Force currently is).
But if your closest neighbors include rogues like North Korea with a penchant for tossing missiles over your head, well the stealth and multi-role advantages of the F-35 makes a lot of sense.
The point is these additional capabilities represent revolutionary approaches. When you include the ducted lift fan, that's another one that has to be paid for.
I will go on record here. The F-35 will not be canceled even if the USAF, USN, and USMC have to go it alone. And I am confident that the RAF will stay onboard. Then, once the aircraft start showing what they can do, the Japanese will want some as a hedge just as they already voiced a desire for F-22's. Personally, I wish the US had agreed to sell them to the JSDAF.
Costs rise due to two factors. First, inflation. Second, fewer numbers for smaller military forces.
The smaller size of forces represent significant cost savings immediately realized. But, to maintain the same punch, you need more power per unit. So, we build vastly smaller lots of fighters but each has far better capabilities. But as those costs increase, given the difference between military and private programs (revolution versus evolution) you would think the costs would be going up more for the military aircraft.
And the sole point I wanted to make earlier is that this is simply not the case at all. This means that for all the criticisms leveled by so many analysts, there is a significant efficiency inside military manufacturers. It isn't an unlimited blank check. Just ask Boeing about their experience with the A-12 that was cancelled on them! Boeing ended up having to pay the DoD $2.8 billion as a penalty! Plus they lost most of their R&D investment. There isn't exactly a long line of companies eager to bid for defense programs any longer!
Add in the reality that this isn't the first time a defense program ran over initial cost estimates. When you read that a program is running over costs, remember, it is really just running over initial estimates. And those estimates were part of a ruthless bidding process. No guarantee the other guy didn't proffer a low bid themselves!
Sometimes, like in the A-12 and the Army's Crusader self-propelled howitzer, a program does deserve to be cancelled. But, the F-35 is meeting far more test parameters than it is missing. It's just all you read about are the few lines it's falling slightly short of. I've seen this same stuff written about the F-15, F-16, C-17, and on and on and on.
Care to go back and read all the "experts" who condemned the M-1 Abrams as a terrible waste and failed dog of a program. Go back and read them and then compare that to what is said now!
Ken
