A new Pentagon forecast showing the total cost of owning and operating a fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters topping $1 trillion over more than 50 years has caused a case of sticker shock in Washington.
And that price tag doesn't even include the $385 billion the Defense Department will spend to purchase 2,500 of the stealthy planes through 2035.
During a Senate hearing this month, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) called the $1 trillion figure "jaw-dropping," particularly when compared with the costs of operating other aircraft.
Said Senator Cain,
"I appreciate this estimate is still early and subject to change, but we need to know that the program is going to bring that number down".
Tom Burbage, who leads the program for manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp., acknowledged that the 'T' word
"causes a lot of the sensational reaction to it, because no one's ever dealt with 't's before in a program."
The long-range estimate is, by its nature, imprecise because it attempts to forecast factors including inflation and fuel costs decades into the future. And the Pentagon says it will be adjusted as the planes enter operation.
But the figure is bringing new scrutiny to what is already the Pentagon's largest-ever weapon-buying project as its budget comes under pressure. Already, Lockheed Martin has said it was looking for ways to bring down the long-term cost.
Christine Fox, head of the Pentagon's cost-assessment office, said in Senate testimony that the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18. But the new aircraft will be much more sophisticated, will be far less visible to enemy radar and will have sensors that allow a single jet to take on missions that now require several aircraft.
The Marine Corps version of the F-35 will be able to hover and land vertically. The Navy model will operate from aircraft carriers, while the Air Force version will be based on land. Developmental aircraft are flying, and the first F-35s—which cost about $113 million each—are slated to enter service later in the decade.
The Pentagon's forecast includes all the possible costs the military might incur over the lifetime of the program, including everything from housing the aircraft to installing replacement parts. Add all those together, and factor in inflation, Mr. Burbage said, and "you trip the trillion-dollar mark."
But, he said,
"The question to ask is, is that a relevant number?"
Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, who previously oversaw cost assessment at the Pentagon, said it wasn't "good analysis" to put that round dollar figure out without a point of comparison—for instance, the cost of sustaining the less-capable aircraft the new plane would replace.
Geneneeral Gardner said,
"You can scare the children with lots of things by projecting out to what it's going to cost in 2065. It's more useful to us if it's [forecast] five to 10 years."
A more near-term analysis, Gen. Gardner said, might add to a constructive debate about realistic costs and alternatives.
It is normal for sustainment costs to outstrip the basic drive-away cost of a piece of military hardware. But Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter said in a recent Senate hearing that the Joint Strike Fighter's projected sustainment bill was on top of an "unacceptably large" bill for procurement.
Still the Pentagon sees no "better alternative" to the F-35 says the general,
"Sustainment seems like years away, but now is the time to face that bill and begin to get that under control."
The Joint Strike Fighter has long been a troubled program, with cost overruns, military management shake-ups and heightened political scrutiny, but Lockheed says the aircraft is now ahead of schedule on its test flights.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Lockheed Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Stevens said the trillion-dollar figure was derived from a new Pentagon "selected acquisition report" that wasn't developed by the company, and said the company would work to find ways to bring down the aircraft's long-term production and sustainment costs.
Says the Lockheed CEO,
"As big as that number is, there are sufficiently large opportunities to reduce that number by making streamlining decisions along the way."
COMMENTARY: Just before leaving office, the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us all when he said, "Beware of the U.S. military industrial complex." I wonder what Ike would say about the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program.
I enjoy writing about and exposing U.S. military wasteful spending, and believe me, "The Greatest Miliary In The World," is the biggest spender of our tax dollars, which is contrary to what people say is being spent on entitlement programs like social security and medicare.
If you believe what the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says the Department of Defense spends each year, then you are very naive. Did you know that the Department of Homeland Security, CIA and NSA fall under the Department of Defense? All the U.S. contractors stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are also included in the Department of Defense budget.
THE FACT IS: Nobody really knows the actual amount being spent by our U.S. military because much of the spending is highly classified and the government simply doesn't want us to know. It's for reasons of national security, and we don't want the other side to know what we are up to.
THE F-22 RAPTOR PROGRAM COMES TO AN END
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth generation super-maneurable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. The Raptor, originally designated the Y-22, first entered service on December 15, 2005, and was designed for the U.S. Air Force primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.
The high cost of the Raptor, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, a US ban on Raptor exports, and the ongoing development of the supposedly cheaper and more versatile F-35 Lightning resulted in calls by the U.S. Defense Department to end F-22 production on April 2009. A total of 168 Raptors were built out of 187 budgeted with a total program cost of $65 billion. Total unit costs per plane was $150 million.
On 9 July 2009, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of the F-22 production line. He believed, most importantly, that Fifth-generation fighters need to be proliferated to all three services, a need that could only be met by shifting more resources to producing the 10-years more advanced, multi-service and multirole F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter jet.
THE F-35 LIGHTNING JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
The F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter jet. previously designated the X-35, will be produced by Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corp, U.S. Navy and our European military partners The U.K., Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada. The number of F-35's to be produced are as follows:
United States:
- US Air Force: 1,763
- US Navy/US Marine Corp: 680
- Total: 2,443
European Military Partners:
- United Kingdom - Royal Air Force and Royal Navy: 138
- Italy: 131
- Netherlands: 85
- Turkey: 100
- Australia: 100
- Norway: 48
- Denmark: 30
- Canada: 65
U.S. also ordered 14 F-35's for flgiht tests.
The 2,443 F-35's for the U.S. military are scheduled for production between now and the year 2035 at a total cost of $385 billion. This averages $158 million per plane (includwa spare parts) before recurring costs like maintenance, housing and armaments. Individual unit costs are as follows:
- F-35A: $122 million (average cost, 2011)
- F-35B: $150 million (average cost, 2011)
- F-35C: $139.5 millin (average cost, 2011)
The F-35 Lightning II comes in three variants designed to replace aircraft from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Navy:
- U.S. Air Force (F-35A CTOL) - Replaces the General Dynamics F-16 Flying Falcon or Viper, a supersonic (1.2 to 2.0 Mach), long-range (2,200 nautical miles) multirole jet fighter designed for dog fighting and attacking ground targets. Original unit cost: $14.6 to $18.8 million (1998 dollars). Average flyaway cost: $3 million.
- U.S. Marine Corp (F-35B STOVL) - Replaces the McDonnel Douglas (now Boeing/BAE Systems Hawker Siddeley Harrier or AV-8A Sea Harrier), a second-generation vertical/short takeoff and landing or V/STOL ground-attack subsonic (662 mph), mid-range (1,200 nautical miles) attack jet. Original unit cost: $30 to $35 million (1997 dollars). Average flyaway costs: NA
- U.S. Navy (F-35C CV) - Replaces the McDonnel Douglas Navy F/A-18 Hornet, a supersonic (1.8 Mach), mid-range (1,089 nautical miles), all-weather carrier-capable multirole fighter jet, designed to dogfight and attack ground targets ((F/A for Fighter/Attack). Original unit cost: $29 to $57 million (2006 dollars). Average flyaway costs: NA
There are subtle specification differences between each variant as listed below:
Below is the U.S. Marine AV-8B Harrier jet landing on the deck of the U.S. Navy Amphibius Assault Ship USS Bataan (LHD-5).
The F-35B (STOVL) will replace all four previous versions of the V/STOL Harrier family.
According to the Pentagon, the estimated average recurring fly away costs per plane using the U.S. Air Force F-35A CTOL as the benchmark is $65 million per year per plane. NOTE: U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corp versions of the F-35 would have a different estimted average recurring fly away costs because of differences in design.
The Pentagon produced the following production schedule for the 2,443 F-35's being ordered based on Lockheed's annual production capacity. This includes 415 F-35's that will be produced between now and the end of FY 2016, and another 2,028 additional F-35's that will be produced between FY 2016 and FY 2035.
If you do the math, the estimated recurring fly away costs for the 415 F-35's that have already been produced and will be produced between FY 2011 and FY2016 are as follows:
- Test Flight Craft - 14: $910 million
- Produced FY Prior to 2011 - 58: $26.390 billion
- Produced FY 2011 - 32: $12.480 billion
- Produced FY 2012 - 32: $10.400 billion
- Produced FY 2013 - 42: $10.920 billion
- Produced FY 2014 - 62: $12.090 billion
- Produced FY 2015 - 81: $10.530 billion
- Produced FY 2016 - 108: $7.020 billion
The above totals for the above 415 F-35's totals approximately $84 billion between now and the end of 2016. Then you add this to the recurring costs for the other 2,028 F-35's that will be produced after FY 2016, and that's how the Pentagon derived its $1 trillion figure. In any event, $65 million for maintenance, housing and armaments for the F-35 is damn expensive to say the least.
COMPARISON F-22A VERSUS F-35A
Thanks to nice folks of the Air Force Association, I was able to obtain a comparison of the F-22A versus F-35A. Comparisons were based on different metrics:
What's not to like about the F-22A. The F-22A was superior over the F-35A in just about every metric except for Unrefuled Combat Radius. The cost comparisons are a bit tricky because they do not include maintenance, housing and armament costs. The F-22A unit cost was also based on a much smaller quantity--187 versus 1763.
The U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy have special needs and requirements because they require V/STOL and carrier-based landing capability respectively. Therefore, the costs for the F-35B and F-35C will probably be higher than the F-35A which is land-based.
The biggest criticism that I have with the F-35 Lightning II is the decision to go with a mulitrole underpowered aircraft that would be designed for three branches of the military. We seem to have put all our eggs in one basket. The F-22A has far better performance characteristics and would've given us greater ability to go up against both Russian and Chinese Fifth Generation Fighter jets.
If the price of the F-35 Lightning II was supposed to be chaper, it sure as hell has not turned out that way. I think we need to totally re-evaluate the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Attack jet. We have no choice. In an era of huge federal budget deficits, we must find ways of reducing costs in every department, and this includes the defense budget, a department with costs that will approach $1 trillion by 2016.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET
To make my case for reductions in the defense budget, let's look at the U.S. Department of Defense Budget for the Fiscal Year 2010, 2011 and 2012 shall we.
U.S. Department of Defense Budget for FY 2010
U.S. Department of Defense Budget for FY 2010 - By Branch and Department
U.S. Defense Department of Defense - Program Spending over $1.5 billion - FY 2011
U.S. Defense Department of Defense - FY 2012 (DOD and other departments)
U.S. Department of Defense Annual Budget for the FY1962 Through FY 2010 and Forecasted for 2014 - Adjusted For Inflation
U.S. Department of Defense Per Capital Spending 1962 Through 2010 and Forecasted for 2014 - Adjusted For Inflation
If you look at the U.S. Department of Defense for programs spending in excess of $1.5 billion, the F-35 is prominently at the top of the list. I think we can assume that the F-35 program will occupy the No 1 spot for a decade and beyond. In short, the F-35 program will be the single most expensive project U.S. Department of Defense Budget.
We have to seriously ask ourselves whether it's time for the U.S. government to seriously consider reducing our military budget. It has gotten completely out of control. Per capita spending on military spending has risen from $2,500 per person in 1962 to nearly $4,000 per person in FY 2010. By FY 2014 per capital spending will be $4,100 per person.
CONCLUSION
I believe we would be better served by replacing the U.S. Air Force F-35A with the F-22A because it is just plain and simple the superior plane in just about every performance metric. It can carry larger payloads, has greater thrust, speed and maneuverability, has a superior flight envelope, and can control twice the battle space of the F-35A. I don't know who made the decision to go with the F-35A, but in my opinion this was a huge mistake.
I like the F-35 Lightning II's multiservice role, and what it can do overall, but performance-wise the F-22 is far superior. Unfortunately, the F-22 is not designed for vertical takeoff and carrier operations. I am very reluctant to go with the F-35B STOLV and F-35C CV, because the F-35 Lightning II's performance puts our Marine and Navy pilots at a disadvantage in combat conditions. If we are going to go into battle, I want my Marines and Navy pilots behind the best plane--period. They should not be second best to anybody.
My other complaint is the F-35 Lightning II's total production costs per aircraft have skyrocketed to $158 million per plane, and are projected to rise even higher. Just what the hell is going on here?Lockheed Martin has a lot of explaining to do. The company needs to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs of production, parts, housing and armaments. We need to find a way to make the plane much more cost-effective, even if it means that Lockheed Martin has to eat some of those flyaway costs.
12/16/12 - UPDATE:
For three years (FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY2012), the Pentagon has been postponing orders for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Plans to produce 425 of the F-35's have been put on hold. But Lockheed, the builder of the F-35 has reasons to be optimistic. According to government officials, the Pentagon is close to approving a deal to produce 29 F-35's during fiscal year 2013. The F-35's history is full of research and development setbacks, rising costs and mounting criticism of the troubled F-35. It is now estimated that if the Pentagon builds 2400+ F-35's, the total cost will hit $395 billion. That's a 70% increase in costs since 2001. Flight tests have uncovered a number of flaws with the F-35. Lockheed has agreed to underwrite half the cost of fixing those flaws. And, the Air Force general who supervises the F-35 program calls the relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed,
"The worst I've ever seen."
Lockheed launched an online campaign on its website to urge F-35 supporters to sign a petition to prevent the F-35 program from being scrapped. The F-35 has undergone numerous test flights since 2006, but don't expect the F-35 to appear over the skys of Afghanistan anytime soon.
Courtesy of an article dated May 26, 2011 appearing in The Wall Street Journal, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Lockheed Martin F-35 Fast Facts, Air Force Association Comparison of F-22A versus F-35A, Wikipedia, Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Report-SAR for the F-35 Lightning II and an article dated December 10, 2012 appearing in Bloomberg
Comments