JSF May Breach Cost Limits

JSF May Breach Cost Limits

Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz has confirmed what most everybody assumed would transpire, that the oft-​​delayed F-​​35 Joint Strike Fighter program will most likely breach the Nunn-​​McCurdy statute that requires the Pentagon notify Congress if a weapon’s cost is spiraling out of control.

“I would say it is a possibility and maybe even [be] likely,” Schwartz told reporters at the Air Force Association’s air warfare symposium,” Defense News reports.

The Nunn-​​McCurdy Amendment requires congressional notification at a 15 percent unit cost increase and program termination at a 25 percent unit cost increase over the original baseline cost estimate; considered a “critical” termination. Although, it’s not really that critical because the amendment says that if the defense secretary certifies the program as vital to national security, then it continues on its course.


Since SecDef Robert Gates said the F-​​35 was “the root of the core of our combat tactical aircraft in the future,” while visiting a Lockheed Martin facility in Texas last summer, the program won’t be terminated. However, that doesn’t mean the overall buy of some 2,500 aircraft might not be trimmed if costs continue to climb at the rate they are. Cutting the buy, of course, boosts per unit costs.

Join the Conversation

Guess the Navy’s concerns were warranted.

I really don’t want the F-35C.…..I’d rather just have more Super Hornets.

Who’d have guess with such glowing reports a year ago and how we really needed to kill F-22.

Could we have been lied to by : JPO, SECDEF, Lockheed, etc.?

All three. I know how the process works and saw it firsthand on JSF.

I concur that we need these aircraft, especially if they perform as expected. However, the program (as is true with many defense acquisition programs) is out of control and should be put into a form of recievership if the folks that are management the project prove themselves incapable.

OTOH, the entire acquisition program needs to be extirpated and replaced by one similar to one used by the British — they get far more for their money than we do. Furthermore, cost plus remains a sacred cow back from WW2 that should be sent to the slaughterhouse.

We really do need these aircraft for the future plus the technology spin offs will more than pay for the program. If you like your big screen LCD/LED TV thank the US Aif Force.

However Blaster is right. We need a ton of the very capable older fighter aircraft. A handful of F-22’s and 35’s cant be everywhere we need them to be at the same time. You need numbers.

We need to stop trying to make the F-35 do everything and keep it relatively simple. A multi-role F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8 replacement.

Yet besides for this many want the F-35 to replace larger, dedicated air-superiority aircraft like the F-15, they want it to have an electronic-warfare capability rivaling dedicated aircraft, they are already thinking about directed energy weapons.

Lets stop trying to give the F-35 more roles and bring expectations to a reasonable level. We cannot expect it to be the bulk of our fleet like the F-16 and excel at what it takes larger (and traditionally costlier) aircraft to do. Meanwhile lets restart development of the F-22 (and a similar 5th gen design for the Navy), and cut no corners when it comes to air-superiority.

Lets look to the past. We had the F-14 and F-15, both large, twin engined designs primarily focused on air-superiority and equipped with excellent radar and avionics system s. And to supplement these we had the F-16 and F/A-18, which would do the bulk of close-air-support and strike missions as well. The same roles should apply to the F-22 and F-35, even if they are far more advanced than previous designs.

If the price of aircraft keps going up at the current rate, soon it will take the entire war budget to build one.

Just pay it off in advance while the price is low so we will be fix at the price.

This is amazing! WTF! While I’m sure the F35 has lots of potential how much money has to be spent before we realize it’s not worth it. I like one of the previous posts, kill the F35 and start funding the modification of the F22. I’m not an expert but it seems to be a much cheaper solution. One problem, the companies that are working the F35 are funding vacations for many in congress to keep the program alive. What a shame!

They’ll just “rebaseline” the program to evade the law. They did this twice on the V-22 by claiming that so many changes were made that its really a new program.

The US Navy may forego the F-35C and develop the X-47B into a fully operational combat system.

never knew a military government program that did not go over their initial cost estimates.

What is the actual cost of these aircraft?
How much does it actually cost to maintain several aircraft carriers (preferably at least 12)
and the aircraft complements in order to stay out of reach of our enemies?

Now how much money was spent on the economic bail-out of irresponsible companies?
How much money is being proposed to be spent on health care?

If we don’t have 1 billion dollars to maintain our carriers where are the trillions for bail-outs
and healthcare coming from?

If we are 1% better than our enemies, we lose all but 1% (our friends, family and neighbors who
are out there).
If we can be 100% better than our enemies, we lose no one.
Which side of the spectrum would you like to aim for?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement