Because I am bored this weekend, I will put together a three part series on why military procurement is fucked up and what we should do about it.
@Huber. I wanted to answer your question in further detail as it is a very complicated situation, especially for the Navy, in which a call for a bigger, or smaller fleet is wrapped up in a larger narrative of how
we are suffering from a trend of weapons that are ever more expensive, of questionable utility and so overdue that they are no longer used for the purpose intended. As a consequence, updating all the services within the next ten years would bust the bank. Indeed, some new weapons are so overdue, not only must we eat the vast cost overruns
but buy new last generation weapon systems to cover the service gap!
It is something that could have been avoided. However, thanks to our political system, and political climate, we have thoroughly fucked ourselves in the ass for decades to come because our procurement system is not so much designed to optimize military readiness, but to make money for the contractors and to provide jobs for Congressional districts (keeping incumbents in office). In order to expand the fleet to 335 ships it would like double their budget. Because you asked, and also because they have the biggest problems, because ships are already expensive but so are their planes now, we'll cover the Navy first in two parts because they are that fucked up.
Editing for spelling and grammar through the day.
Navy Part I. The F-35 Cash Jet: I cost so much that I eat the Navy's budget by myself (or it is so bad even Trump knows it's terrible. Sad!)
Preface: The Navy and Air Force all know the life-span of their aircraft and know most are nearing the end of their useful service life by since most date from the late 1970s. Now the Navy must buy new F/A-18s because the ones they have are falling apart. 34% of the USMC's Hornets are no longer operable. So why the crunch when everyone had decades to plan?
Because of this fucking guy:
Obsolescence presumes that the weapon system in question worked in the first place. So far it has not.
Q: Ok, WTF? Why and how does this thing cost so fucking much and why doesn't it work? For that money it had better send a missile up Putin's ass while giving the pilot a blow job. Is it any good?
A: It is a financial black hole that flies like a cow and was doomed before it made its way overdue first flight. Here's why:
Congress mandated a common airframe for the Air Force, Navy and Marines in the F-35. To save money (LOL). This is profoundly stupid. Why?
A. The Navy needs a plane to replace the F/A-18 which is a conventionally launched high-performance (flies faster than mach 2.0, highly maneuverable, carries a lot of ordinance) fighter for carrier operations to include air superiority, ground support and fleet protection.
B. The Marines need a plane to replace the Harrier which is a vertical take-off, low performance ground support attack aircraft. It is meant to provide a Marine expeditionary force with close air support from either an amphibious carrier or an expeditionary airfield. Aircraft of this sort should be able to take a beating, have long loiter times and carry a fucking arsenal of Johnny Jihad killing bombs, missiles and 30mm cannon.
Oh, and it also has to be STEALTH.
These two mission profiles are completely incompatible in the same airframe to say nothing of making it stealthy.
The vertical take-off and landing requirement the Marines had basically made the airframe design impossible with regard to high performance. The result is an aircraft that performs none of its mandated jobs well. In fact despite being a decade overdue, during which time you would think they would have worked out the myriad malfunctions, the Pentagon has been lying about the progress they've been making and vastly overestimating the modest advances they have made in making the jet operational. The lies have become so burdensome that an Air Force general actually passed out during a press briefing about the F-35's budget. The F-35 inflicts its first casualty:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Irv0hET_-o
But wait, before we get into why it doesn't adequately replace the F/A-18, and especially the Harrier, remember the part about the common airframe being cheaper than two different planes? Lol. It is way more expensive. The cost breakdown:
1) Per unit, using Pentagon accounting, it runs from between $100-$200 million per unit. In reality, it runs between $180 million for the F-35A for the Air Force and
$350 million for the Naval F-35C. Or more. To put that in perspective, the excellent F/A-18 Super Hornet runs at just under $100 million per plane.
Laughably, the Air Force cancelled the F-22 program after only 187 aircraft because it cost
too much at $150 million per unit.
They did it to purchase F-35s that are supposed to be cheaper than the F-22 at both the flyaway cost and costs per flight hour. Whoops. To add insult to injury, the F-22 is a proven ball-buster and the best fighter in the world. The F-35 breaks the necks of its pilots.
2) So not only does the F-35 cost a fucking fortune off the lot, but it is also the most expensive military aircraft in the world to operate per flight hour. Take a look:
Over its service-life, the F-35 will cost you and me, our crotch-fruit, as well as theirs, north of $750 million per fucking plane. Or $1.5 trillion over the absurdly long service-life (55 years Lol) the Pentagon thinks this plane is capable of.
With $1.5 trillion we could:
- Send every kid in the country to college for free for a decade.
- Buy 12 billion kegs of beer.
- 30 billion premium dildos complete with balls (for @The Oi).
- 1700 NBA Franchises (being generous with the Kings).
- 375,000 M1A2 SEP Abrams Main Battle Tanks.
- Purchase 25,000 JAS-39 Gripen/Es. At that number each Gripen would only have to fire one of its super-advanced Meteor missiles and it would be enough to shoot down every single Russian, Chinese, North Korean and Arab fighter aircraft in existence.
The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen/E is an interesting counter-point to the F-35. At only $60 million per unit, it can do everything the F-35 is supposed to do, including the vaunted sensor fusion capability, and is actually a far superior plane with regard to performance and ground attack capability, with the exception of stealth.
However, stealth isn't as useful as it used to be which brings us to whether or not the performance of the weapon system justifies the cost. IT DOES NOT.
Ok, let's get to brass tacks. Is the plane good? It has stealth. And sensor fusion. Stealth is nice but actually increasingly problematic and this plane squanders it.
Q: You said stealth isn't what it used to be. Why?
A: Radar systems are far cheaper and faster to develop and improve than building stealth aircraft. We aren't even sure stealth works against the Russians or Chinese anymore.
A2: Moreover, the new radar and sensor systems mountable in our planes can see enemy aircraft, and fire missiles at them at distances they can't, well before they can see us. Stealth isn't as necessary in air-to-air combat as a result.
If stealth is meh, and the same sensor fusion is achievable on current airframes, is the F-35 at least better than the planes it is replacing. Fuck no.
Q: Is it better than the F/A-18 it is replacing for the role of air-superiority, fleet protection and ground attack?
A: It is worse at all of the above in raw terms. If the stealth works it may have an edge, but that edge is squandered by the shortcomings of the airframe. Here is a comparison:
The F/A-18E Super Hornet:
- Significantly faster
- Constructively carries more ordinance
- Far better dog fighter
- Far greater stand-off range
- More robust and can handle more damage (two engines)
- Can carry a greatly more varied payload
- Has a cannon
The F-35C:
The irony, and tragedy, of the F-35 program is that it is designed to see and shoot down aircraft at great ranges. However, the design so far has made it unable to carry the long-range missiles to accomplish that task. Even worse, the F-35 can only carry four missiles internally. Anything carried on the wings renders its stealth capabilities moot. So, in reality it can only carry 40% of the ordinance of the F/A-18.
Ok, if it can't fight at the range of the F/A-18E, or carry enough ordinance to replace the Super Hornet's fleet protection capabilities without giving away its location, can it dogfight if caught? Fuck. No. It is dead meat. It handles like a bathtub and had its ass kicked by F-16s.
Here is a link: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-can-not-dogfight-effectively-2015-7
I don't want to ask, but can the F-35B at least do what the Harrier II does and blow up ISIS assholes on the ground? Not as well.
Q: Why the fuck not? It can take off vertically and carries all them bombs in that graphic. And it COSTS $1.5 TRILLION!!!
A: The F-35 can't carry any weapons on the outside and be stealth which means it carries less than half the armament of the Harrier II to have an advantage over the older plane. It doesn't even have a fucking internal cannon. Can't carry rocket pods without everyone knowing it's there. So you'll never see it do this:
Q: WTF? If it can't carry weapons the Harrier does, what is the point? Why the fuck do the Marines even need stealth? It isn't supposed to protect the fleet like an F-18!
A: They don't. In fact, it is awful at CAS and is a fragile snowflake compared to the Harrier II. We won't even talk about how inferior it is at its role compared to the A-10.
You said earlier that the Navy has to buy new F/A-18s because the old aircraft are past their shelf-life. When was the F-35 supposed to be in service? Why didn't they just buy the F-22 like the Air Force? About ten years ago. The services don't like sharing anything.
This shit show has seriously set the entire military back by decades. Unlike most other Congressional leaders, John McCain has been taking the services and contractors alike to task for the billions in cost overruns and the nightmarish delays. McCain calls the program a "Scandal and a tragedy."
"The F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179... McCain added that the plane's delays meant that "the last F-35 will be delivered in 2040," and given that potential adversaries like China and Russia were investing in modern aircraft technology, he said he "cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense." By the time we receive the last F-35, the aircraft, which already sucks, will possibly be two generations behind. It is akin to taking delivery of the last F-4 Phantoms in 2018.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/f-35-delay-air-force/
Q: Why didn't the Navy purchase a carrier version of the F-22? Especially after the aircraft proved itself to be a game-changer and cheaper that the F-35C?
A: The Navy wanted its own design even though there was a carrier variant available. The services won't even share camouflage patterns anymore and for some reason they are allowed to get away with it. The Navy also thought it would be too expensive. Lol.
If it can't fight as well as the F/A-18E, or bomb terrorists like the Harrier II, and costs Italy and is so overdue it will be obsolete in 10 years and is forcing them to buy new last generation planes on top of the cost overruns, why the fuck is the Navy buying them?
People are getting rich and elected off it. And it isn't the only Naval program so expensive it has crippled their budget.
Next: Navy Part II. The Zumwalt-Class Boondoggle: So expensive they can't afford the ammunition for it.
Other helpful link: https://warisboring.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398#.6uyug6xhp