Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 24, 2009 in Economy, International, Places, Politics, Science & Technology, War | 13 comments

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program – Its Ups and Downs (Update)


It has been a while since I have written on two of the most controversial, expensive and important weapons programs in decades: The F-22 Raptor fighter and the F-35 multirole Joint Strike Fighter, or Lightning II.

As we remember, on July 21, 2009, “in a dogfight almost to the end,” as the Washington Post reported it, Congress scrapped the F-22 program.

Secretary Gates not only halted production of the F-22 (after the final four are built), but he also cut the maximum production of the F-35 multirole fighter to 80 per year for the U.S. Air Force.

Both moves drew a firestorm of criticism from Congress, the military, the military aerospace industry and the military aerospace community, and there were dire predictions of massive layoffs and of disastrous consequences for defense contractors.

(The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is one of the most ambitious aircraft programs ever. It is a huge international program involving eight international partners or participants, each one contributing varying amounts to the development phase and cost of the program and each one intending to eventually procure a number of these aircraft)

The sky has not fallen over Lockheed Martin or the aerospace industry, but terminations and scale-backs of other defense programs have resulted in some loss of revenue and profitability for Lockheed and have forced it to cut some jobs. Lockheed Chief Executive Robert Stevens has said that Lockheed is beginning to see the impact of the wind-down of the Raptor program—scheduled to produce the last aircraft in 2012.

In the meantime, the F-35 program has proceeded with both ups and downs for Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for both the F-22 and the F-35.

It’s hard to pin down the number of F-35s to be eventually built.

Lockheed Martin claims that it still has the administration’s strong support for acquiring more than 2,400 F-35s.

In a recent Air Force Times report, Lockheed spokesman Chris Geissel says that the U.S. still intends to buy 2,443 F-35s, and that Britain plans to buy 138 with the seven other nations participating in the F-35 program planning to buy about 700. “There are no indications from any of the partner countries that they are going to trim back,” and that in addition to those 3,281, Lockheed expects to sell F-35s to Israel, Japan, South Korea and other customers. The total “could reach 4,500 or more,” Geisel said.

Other sources put the total number lower. For example, as reported by the Air Force Times, U.S. defense analyst Barry Watts of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says that, ultimately, it is likely that only half of the planned F-35s will be built and that history is against the F-35. He cites that in the four stealthy aircraft programs that preceded the F-35, the U.S. military declared a need for 2,378 planes, but ultimately bought only 267.

The same Air Force Times article mentions a Dutch defense analyst’s report to the Dutch Parliament warning of rising costs, changing threats, rival aircraft and, consequently, a lower number of F-35s to be built. Lockheed Martin strongly disputes such assessments and claims that international interest remains strong among partner countries, projecting international sales to be about 750 aircraft, with a potential for additional aircraft sold through Foreign Military sales (FMS).

Lockheed Martin reports that it continues to achieve objectives and operational milestones in the various phases and flight tests of the F-35 development program, including with its conventional and short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft and the first aerial refueling test.

The New York Times, however, writes this morning that an internal Pentagon report suggests that “work on the new stealth fighter, the Pentagon’s largest weapons program, had fallen so far behind that it could cost $16.6 billion more than expected over the next few years.”

And, in more bad news for Lockheed, that the company “would have to cover part of the increased costs of the huge program.”

According to the Times, Ashton B. Carter, an undersecretary of defense, delivered that message to the company’s chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, on Sunday at a meeting on how to get the program back on track. But, “Lockheed Martin has described the latest Pentagon cost estimates as a worst case. It has said it is making manufacturing improvements that could keep the costs from ballooning and help it get back on schedule by 2011.”

Finally, on the bright side, The Australian has just reported that Australia’s defense chiefs have firmly backed the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) planned $16 billion investment in the F-35. The decision still needs Australia’s national security committee’s approval. The RAAF wants to buy up to 100 F-35s to replace its F/A-18 ‘classic Hornets’ and the soon-to-be-retired F-111 strike force.

According to The Australian, “Senior government sources say the Rudd government’s budget problems remain the only serious obstacle to getting a green light for the F-35 fighter deal…Both Defence Minister John Faulkner and Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet remain fully committed to the joint strike fighter as the best choice for Australia’s future air combat arm.”

Hopefully, good news for Lockheed Martin and its F-35 program


This just in from a Dutch source (JSF that the Australian government has approved the purchase of the first batch of 14 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for a total of A$3.2 billion (approximately $2.96 billion).

This first batch will be delivered to Australia in the U.S. in 2014 for training and testing.

Australian Minister of Defense John Faulkner said that the next batch will be considered for purchase in 2012. Australia is envisaging at least 72 F-35s for three squadrons.

Image: Courtesy Lockheed Martin

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • The F-35 program is in trouble. The LM and gone-native-to-industry DOD F-35 project office are trying to paint a pretty picture on all the delays. For example, painting the JET report as “worst case”. Given the limited scope (timeframe) that the JET report looked at, it may very well be “best case”.
    As for Australian Defence chiefs backing the F-35 program, also reported in the news that day-the sun yet again set in the west and Britney Spears lip-syncs parts of her live performance. In other words. No new news. It is the politicians that are not so sure about things and they will probably delay any final procurement decision–just like the rest of the JSF partner nations.
    In U.S.fy2009 the F-35 was supposed to have over 300 flight tests. We got a few dozen. In fy2010 the schedule is supposed to have over 1200 flight tests–plus the make up work for 2009. It won’t happen. The program if you look into it in detail, is based on spin and sophistry. There is just a bit over 2 percent of the flight testing done. Wouldn’t you as a smart buyer, demand more knowns of what constitutes a go-to-war aircraft before we build scores of “mistake jets” produced on very little flight test feedback?

    • DdW

      Eric, as the title says, the F-35 program has had—and is having –its ups and downs.”

      You have highlighted the “downs.”

      Thanks for commenting,


    • DdW


      Some breaking news just came in on the Australian F-35 acquisition. See the “Update”


  • I would very much like to highlight the “ups”. Unfortunately there are none of any real concrete worth. If we want to improve the air power roadmap of the U.S. and all the money that is put into it, we better all take on board the fact that the F-35 program is in trouble. There is no wondrous groupthink or happy PowerPoint presentations that will get us out of this situation. Ashton Carter will have a lot of work to do to sort this one out.

    • DdW

      If you peruse through the dozen or so articles I have written at TMV on both the F-22 and F-35 programs, I hope you’ll see that I have tried to stay impartial on both aircraft, and I hope to stay that way.

      Although you say that there are no “ups” that are “of any real concrete worth,” I am sure one can find plenty elucidated by supporters of the program—just as there are many negative ones by opponents of the program. An example of a positive review, is “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Remains Good Value for America and Allies,” by Rebecca Grant, a fierce supporter of both the F-22 and F-35. There are several others.

      Especially when it comes to capabilities and versatility of the F-35, the revolutionary technologies and materials it embodies, and its sophisticated assembly and production techniques and technology, there are many “ups” to be found.

      But yes, there are cost, schedule and testing problems.

      And, again, your comments are well taken and appreciated.

  • Dr. Grants past works are required reading for anyone wanting to keep up on for example, stealth technology. Her paper “The Radar Game” is 101 on the topic of low observable methods.The program promises much. And it is that promise that has to produce and not become tired sayings of greatness.Thanks for your efforts on writing on this topic. I hope to see more.

  • Father_Time

    Well we cannot afford it anymore. Best we can hope to excel in is UAVs. The cost of these advanced technologies are way out there. Our national debt is beyond belief.

  • Don Quijote

    Why do we need the F22 or the F35, don’t we already have the best and largest Air Force in the world? So Who are we building these planes to go to war against?

    • DdW


      Again, without defending or supporting the two particular programs (F-22 and F-35), national security and defense experts look not only at the present threats and capabilities, but also at future ones, and probably believe that potential adversaries have and/or are developing aircraft in such numbers and with such advanced capabilitieds, that require us us to develop even better and more aircraft in order to maintain air superiority in any future combat.

      Now, as FT mentioned, and I have written before, others, like Gates, believe that more and more we’ll be involved in unconventional warfare, face asymetrical threats, where, for example UAVs will play an increasingly more important role.

      • Don Quijote

        national security and defense experts look not only at the present threats and capabilities, but also at future ones

        Make a list of countries that have the aeronautical industry required to build an F15 or the equivalent thereof:
        France, Great Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany (maybe)
        then make a list of countries that have the funds needed to build such an Aircraft on large quantities:
        China (maybe)
        and then make a list of countries that fit both criteria and that aren’t US allies…

        It’s a boondoggle, nothing more than a waste of tax dollars….

  • DdW

    Sadly, potential adversaries such as Russia and China do and will dedicate large portions of their GDP, often at the expense of other requirements, to build the weapons they feel are necessary.

  • Father_Time

    Why are we doing business with China if they are going to be an adversary militarily? Doing business with us and the rest of the world is actually giving China the capability to defeat us in battle. About Russia, didn’t the last president say that he “knew his heart”…? If our president is not worried why should we?

    Besides, we would be smart to make China our closest ally. Time to suck up I should think.

    • DdW

      What you’re saying has a lot of merit, FT. (trying to make China a genuine ally, and having someone realiable look into Putin’s, and his cohorts’eyes), but until then, I believe that we should keep our guard, and our air superiority, up.


Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :