the US military is the most powerful in the world on land sea and air but when it comes to
the air they have a big problem an ageing fleet of aircraft spanning multiple platforms across three
branches of the military their answer the joint strike fighter aircraft program the most ambitious
expensive and controversial military program in history we're talking about replacing the f-16
the a-10 warthog the f-18 Super Hornet and the aviate Harrier among others and not only would
it have to meet the needs of the Navy Air Force and Marines but also appeal to foreign militaries
around the world it all sounds good on paper but the reality has left some wondering if this grand
unifying philosophy was a huge mistake and whether they bit off more than they could chew and let's
not forget about cost which would make even Warren Buffett blush with an estimated program lifecycle
cost of 1.5 trillion dollars it sure isn't going to help beat down the u.s. national debt and yes
that's trillion with a T as far back as the late 1980s the jsf program was conceived as
a way to replace multiple aircraft with a single base aircraft that had three variants each with
their own technical requirements the f-35 a Air Force variant would be for conventional takeoff
and landing have stealthy capabilities and be intended primarily for air-to-air dogfighting
and close air support the f-35b marine variant would be for short takeoff in vertical landing
and is intended primarily for attack missions and the ability to take off and land with no air
strip and the f-35c Navy variant would require foldable wingtips carrier takeoff and landing
capabilities and is intended primarily for attack and fighter missions and whenever you
have a design by committee across multiple branches of the military there are bound
to be some compromises especially when trying to combine several aircraft roles into one do-it-all
marvel jet but in theory they would be acceptable compromises or at least that was the line peddled
by the military program managers and the aircraft manufacturers one major promise was to keep the
cost of the aircraft training supply chains and maintenance low all hinging on the idea of high
part commonality many other promises have been made both from Lockheed Martin to the Pentagon and
from the Pentagon to Congress let's take a look at some of the more controversial ones a cost of
about 50 to 70 million dollars per plane in 2000 $17 aired air ground-attack and close air support
capabilities stealth technology sensor fusion for a high-tech view of the battlespace less expensive
operational cost over legacy fleets and of course the 80 percent part commonality between the three
variants the actual plane cost depending on what article you read is quite alarming estimates now
put the cost anywhere from two to four times what was originally stated in 1994 and that's
adjusting for current dollars now the air dare dogfighting capability of the f-35 has gotten a
lot of press from both sides in 2015 in a leaked report where one f-35 a test pilot went up against
a 40 year-old f-16d in an intimate mock dogfight the pilot reported lack of maneuverability unable
to come out victorious against the f-16 but in 2016 31 f-35 pilots were interviewed and every
one of them would take the f-35 a over former jets in most air to air combat scenarios there
have been numerous reports since not surprisingly on both sides of the argument when it comes to
the dangerous close air support mission a fair number of a-10 warthog advocates believe there
is no plane currently capable of replacing it the f-35 included they cite the f-35 s lack of armor
plating and poultry 181 rounds on the smaller 25 millimeter cannon as well as the inability to fly
low and short loiter times aspects they say the a-10 excel at but f-35 proponents would say that
speed stealth maneuverability and sensor fusion would give the f-35 a distinct edge in ground
support missions and the ability to fly much higher often employing smaller more precise bombs
Lieutenant Colonel Raja Chari director of the f-35 integrated test force had some interesting
comments on the 810 vs f-35 debate if US forces are fighting in a high thread environment the a-10
isn't really in the conversation and regarding low threat environments he says if you are talking a
non contested environment you are going to have tankers you could easily get to 90 minutes if
you are 15 minutes from where you are going to loiter and a former a10 instructor pilot said
the situational awareness aids associated with the center suite of the f-35 allowed pilots to
execute close air support missions as well or better than the a-10 in low threat environments
and although more than half of the 288 ends have been re wing to keep them flying potentially into
the 2030s there are plans for a face-off between the two planes later in 2018 which may result in
a much earlier retirement of the a-10 according to outspoken f-35 detractor pierre sprey stealth
is a scam it simply doesn't work spray sights the f-35 is being only stealthy in the x-band but not
in other radar frequencies potentially making it vulnerable to much older tracking technologies
Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon counter by saying the f-35 strengths lie in the ability
to go undetected giving it first look first shot first kill retired Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel
Dave Burke a former Top Gun instructor who has flown the f-35 f-22 f-16 and f-18 had this to
say it's really difficult for me to overstate what a massive advantage you have in decision
making in the f-35 but we need to remember that even the best stealth does not make a
plane invisible to radar or other enemy sensors however it usually means it can be detected at
a much shorter range and when detected doesn't necessarily mean the enemy can engage the reality
is that stealth is just one important ingredient in a much larger recipe a smart strategy built
a detailed virtual blueprint of the enemy's electronic order of battle and then designs
the mission to take advantage of the strengths of the aircraft stealth being just one of them
so what about that nearly half million dollar helmet and this fancy thing called sensor fusion
the oversimplified idea is that the f-35 will take inputs from several different sensors on the plane
and merge them into a single display right inside that sexy helmet rather than separate displays for
each sensor as seen in the current generation of birds in addition each f-35 would be able to
share information with other f-35s creating a more broad and confident picture of the threat
environment and potential targets without the back-and-forth lag of radio communication but
in a 2016 Memorandum the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation dr. Michael
Gilmore outlines many of the aircraft's faults including several issues with the sensor fusion
system for example pilots were seeing two enemies when there should only be one in response to that
the chief of the f-35 joint program office Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan said
there were no surprises in the memo and the jpo is currently acting on all the recommendations
since many of the sensor fusion issues seem to be software related it is likely that most of
these will be addressed before the planes are put into full service but when and more importantly
how much will it cost are the big questions no doubt these fixes will balloon the program
cost even further with the legacy f-16 costing around $20,000 per flight hour the estimated
cost of $42,000 per flight hour for the f-35 is more than double now a far cry from the original
promise of lower than legacy operational costs and remember that promise of 80% part commonality that
was so compelling well now a number of reports indicate that number is closer to 25% seems like
yet another broken promise but was the jsf program inherently flawed or even necessary in the first
place in a 2013 study by the RAND Corporation they found that it would have been cheaper if
the Air Force Marine Corps and Navy had developed three separate aircraft to meet their specific and
varied requirements for instance the Stovall requirement of the Marine Corps resulted in a
compromised design for the Navy and Air Force a single engine with thick bodies and short wings
are some reasons why there are so many criticisms around the f-35s maneuverability and reliability
and there were alternatives to the entire program for instance older planes like the f-18 Super
Hornet could have been retrofitted just like the EAA teen growler with modern avionics and
electronic warfare equipment but that's water under the bridge and all the Monday morning
quarterbacking won't change the fact that the program is marching forward and let's not forget
about the so-called budget death spiral in order to keep the cost per plane low Lockheed needs to
produce and sell a lot of aircraft but if the defense budget shrinks and the government cuts
orders the price of each plane goes up and when the price of each plane goes up you guessed it
the government cuts more orders and this cycle typically keeps repeating itself until you have
very few planes on hand and you have spent a buttload of cash this vicious cycle is not a new
phenomenon we saw it happen with the f-22 and it's already happening with the f-35 where the program
will end up when the last domino falls is yet to be seen but it's not looking good and with that
some of the biggest financial value propositions have vanished into the contrails of the sky and
many of the technical ones hang in the balance but all the technical and financial controversies
are not even close to the whole story there is something more powerful at play here the
military-industrial complex that term is often thrown around willy-nilly but what does it really
mean in layman's terms simply put it's the working relationship between three entities the military
arms manufacturers and the government but another very important layer to this relationship is not
an entity it's the economy and it's a very tasty carrot on the stick of the CD thickest Steve's
arrangement dangling in front of politicians in the case of Lockheed Martin they have spread out
f-35 part manufacturing over 46 states and nine foreign countries with a total of some 1,300
suppliers creating upwards of a hundred and fifty thousand jobs in the United States alone but they
didn't do this for manufacturing logistics or efficiency reasons Arlis of what they might say
publicly instead Lockheed has gotten very good at what is called political engineering this crafty
bipartisan friendly strategy makes it very hard for senators or congressmen be it democrat or
republican to oppose the program because that would risk losing jobs for their constituents
and ultimately jeopardize their re-election hopes that whole power thing is mighty powerful
mixing the fact that you have three branches of the military invested in a single program
and cancelling it becomes a near impossibility and that is why the f-35 Joint Strike Fighter program
cannot be stopped and why the program has been dubbed too big to fail and too big to kill the
f-35 is rolling off the assembly line as we speak some pilots will hate it some will love it and
some will just learn to live with it despite what the extreme Talking Heads say it's not a terrible
plane nor is it the best that could have been purpose-built for each branch of the military
instead it's a very expensive all-in-one solution that has compromises some expected some not and
it's here to stay given that the f-35 is intended to serve the US military for decades to come will
we ever see another manned fighter program or do you think that we are on a precipice of change
where drones will be able to fill the role of fighters bombers and attack aircraft of today
is the f-35 the most expensive military aircraft mistake ever made and what would you like to see
from us in future aviation videos let us know in the comments below and if you enjoyed this video
we would be honored to have your subscription we're two-bit aviation thank you for watching
you