The recent dust up over rising costs and lengthening delays in development of the F-35 joint strike fighter, chronicled in a Star-Telegram story, has gotten a lot of attention in the defense press and even the New York Times.
Then on Monday oft-quoted Washington D.C. defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a mildly hawkish defense think tank and strongly hawkish advocate for the defense industry, took the press and others to task for making much ado about not much and not appreciating how well run the F-35 program is.
Thompson argues the F-35 is now being targeted by the anti-defense types just like the F-22 before it and there's really nothing much wrong with the way the program is going.
If you don't follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble. The $300 billion program to develop a stealthy, multi-role tactical aircraft for three U.S. military services and at least nine allies has been the focus of negative coverage since approximately April 6, when defense secretary Robert Gates announced the Air Force would buy no more F-22 fighters. Almost overnight, critics who had been assailing the F-22 trained their sights on the F-35 and resumed firing.
The F-35, Thompson says, "isn't really all that troubled, and Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter will see the bureaucratic politics for what they are." He then lists four reasons why the F-35 program "is going to turn out fine" including this gem: "There is no alternative."
Thompson, by the way, acknowledges that in addition to his think tank duties he is also a consultant to Lockheed, among other contractors.
Now Aviation Week veteran writer Bill Sweetman, no fan of the F-35 program, says Thompson's argument "makes no sense."
The first of four points in the brief is that "there is no alternative" to the JSF. Even if that's true (Boeing would disagree in the case of the Navy, and lots of people in the case of export customers) it does not mean that the program is going well. At best, the trashing of alternatives implies that JSF will be continued no matter what, at any cost and on any timescale. But that's not success: with flat budgets, such an outcome will gut US and allied air power.
The good doctor's second point is that other programs (like the A400M) are doing worse than the F-35, which is "months behind schedule".
What schedule exactly?
The F-35 is months, in some respects almost a year, behind the schedule established in May 2008, which was a year later than the 2005 schedule, which in turn was 18 months behind the original schedule that was set in 2001.
It's a good debate. .

