F-35 warplane costs driven up by production choice: U.S. general

CANBERRA Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:24pm EST

A F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter from the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 prepares to land at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in this September 18, 2012 handout photo courtesy of the U.S. Marine Corps. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Jeremy T. Lock/Handout

A F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter from the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 prepares to land at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in this September 18, 2012 handout photo courtesy of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Credit: Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Jeremy T. Lock/Handout

Related Topics

CANBERRA (Reuters) - A decision to start production of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet before it was fully tested has driven up the $396 billion cost of the troubled project and increased risks, the U.S. general heading development of the warplane has said.

The head of the Pentagon's F-35 program office, Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, told Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television that major challenges had been created by a production and test approach known as "concurrency".

"A large amount of concurrency, that is, beginning production long before your design is stable and long before you've found problems in tests, creates downstream issues where now you have to go back and retrofit airplanes and make sure the production line has those fixes in them," Bogdan told ABC's Four Corners program late on Monday.

"That drives complexity and cost. Let's make no mistake about it. This program still has risks, technical risks, it has cost issues, it has problems we'll have to fix in the future," he said in his first interview on the problem-plagued F-35.

Australia's government is looking at buying 24 more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets amid continuing delays and setbacks in the Joint Strike Fighter project, which is the costliest program in Pentagon procurement history.

That means Australia could buy fewer than the 100 F-35s originally planned, echoing warnings from Canada that it could also look to other options for its future jet fighters. The Netherlands and Italy have also cut back orders.

The F-35 has been co-developed by the United States and eight foreign partners - Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway. Purchase contracts have also been signed by Israel and Japan.

Bogdan, who will travel to Australia in coming weeks for talks on the F-35 Lightning II, said the aircraft was ironically unable to fly within 40 km (25 miles) of a lightning storm because its fuel tanks could ignite.

"Will this problem occur in the future? No, because we have the known fixes for it and we will fix it," he said.

The aircraft was developed as a replacement for several different types of U.S. warplanes.

A spokeswoman for Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith said a government decision last year to defer orders of its first squadron of F-35s would limit Canberra's exposure to the spiraling cost of the project.

Australia is due to decide at the end of this year on the timing of its next order of 12 F-35s while it considers options to replace Classic F/A-18 fighter jets. Canberra's fleet of 71 F/A-18s entered service between 1985 and 1990 and were due to retire by around 2020.

Australia also has 24 of the new generation F/A-18F Super Hornets, which entered service in 2010 and 2011, 12 of which have been upgraded with sophisticated U.S. jamming equipment.

(Reporting by Rob Taylor; Editing by Paul Tait)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (11)
morbas wrote:
Little doubt about capabilities of this fighter/bomber. The assertion is valid, but putting new systems into the field is the Pentagon way to force development and keep the system from an irrational political ax. In an ideal world perhaps we could double the development cost and time without risk of cancellation. Just my observation, what phantom foe are we defending ourselves from?

Feb 18, 2013 8:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:
You are very likely looking at the last manned fighter the United States ever builds. The fighter pilot mafia always wants the newest and most expensive solution to air to air combat. The added expense, weight, and performance penalty of carrying a pilot is no longer justified. Autonomous Combat Air Vehicles (A-CAVs) are the future. The cost of this aircraft and of it’s manned bomber counterparts are just insane.

Feb 18, 2013 8:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:
You pseudo jockeys are missing the point entirely; you obviously can’t see the forest for the trees. Abolish these senseless wars, and all our problems will go away in a heartbeat. That we still think we can solve our problems by hurling things at each other is quite barbaric. All we’ve done is modernize how we throw the rocks and spears, nothing has been done to modernize the social aspects of our conflicts. Send the politicians to the battle fields; wars would become obsolete NOW.

Feb 19, 2013 12:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus