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!
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at wastore@pct.edu. Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author’s permission.
Expensive replacements are needed more often…sounds like a good business model.
The EX can also carry twice the payload.
Let the military build things that don’t last. That could make NATO end its wars & drone strikes. They’d function the way Biden’s & Reagan’s brains functioned when they got older.
An Antiwar.com essay limning the relative “positive” features of old and new US war aircraft. Did I miss something about this site’s mission?
The point made is this: When we make bigger and better war machines, there has to be a bigger and (not) better war to use them.
Retort if you will vs simple truth. Understood. Not respected.
Wont it be a good thing when humanity realizes that wars are too expensive to fight?
The wastrels running the show should be {insert your favorite punishment}.
Spot on . F-15 is much more of a figher jet that the goofy pseudo-stealth plastic gimmick good mostly for Hollywood F-35. They call it hangar queen for a reason. This “fighter” is even afraid to fly in the rain. Chuckles 😀