Strange Factoid on the F-35 Jet Fighter
Would you buy a new car if its longevity was 40% of your old one?
When I was still in the Air Force, the F-35 was on the drawing boards as a fairly low cost, multi-role, fighter-bomber somewhat akin to an F-150 pickup truck. Being designed and built by Lockheed Martin and also having to meet the varying requirements of the U.S. Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, cost and complexity quickly escalated, so much so that an AF Chief of Staff recently compared it to a Ferrari rather than to a trusty and capable pickup truck.
That Ferrari comparison is apt with respect to cost, though even Ferraris may be more durable and reliable than the F-35.
How so? A friend sent along an article on the F-15EX Eagle II fighter.
Now, I’ve been reading about the F-15 since I was a teenager in the 1970s. It’s a proven fighter jet but it lacks the stealthy characteristics of the F-35. But here’s the section that got my attention from the article:
Remember, the F-15EX has a 20,000-hour airframe life. The F-35A has an 8,000-hour airframe life. This is one way the F-15EX gets done dirty when people make comparisons between it and the F-35, often based on unit cost alone, which is about equal. We are talking about two-and-a-half times the airframe hours out of the box with the F-15EX. That is not a knock against the F-35A at all. The F-15EX is just a very mature aircraft that has been optimized for longevity over a much younger one.
I like the way the author tries to explain away the short airframe life of the F-35. Hey, it’s a young aircraft! What can you expect except a 60% drop in longevity?
How many of us would buy a car, a truck, or any other technology if we were told the new tech would last only 40% as long as roughly comparable older tech? Would Apple advertise a new iPhone battery as lasting only four hours when the previous version lasted ten hours? How many people would rush out to buy the “new and improved” iPhone in this case?
The F-35 has many issues, which I’ve written about here and here. Add a much quicker expiration date to the mix.
I’m assuming Ferrari is none too happy with its cars being compared to the F-35!
"How many of us would buy a car, a truck, or any other technology if we were told the new tech would last only 40% as long as roughly comparable older tech?"
This is off-topic re the F-35, but let's face it: pretty much NO new versions of anything last as long as older models. Most items we have are disposable, or nearly so. Cars are literally designed so as not to be fixable by shade-tree mechanics. One sensor glitch, and bam! the vehicle is out of commission. My husband sees this all the time in the heavy trucks he drives for a living. With some products---e.g., refrigerators, TVs---it's a wash when it comes to repair versus replace. Again, by design. Meanwhile, 1950s-era cars and appliances, if properly maintained, still function., albeit without some modern bells and whistles.
Regarding the F-35, from what you've told us, Bill, it seems to have been proposed as a universal solution to most of the military branches' needs, which, to this civilian, seems a losing proposition on its face. And yes, if it's been on the drawing board for over 20 years and still can't perform adequately, how could it be anything but a boondoggle?
Spend spend spend
Kill kill kill
Sanction sanction sanction
Usa usa usa