Home » Air » Hill Reacts to F-35 IOC Shift

Hill Reacts to F-35 IOC Shift

By Colin Clark Monday, February 22nd, 2010 10:25 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy, Rumors

The Joint Strike Fighter’s initial operational capability date may shift substantially to the right. That’s according to the general who runs Air Combat Command, Gen. William Fraser, who spoke to reporters this afternoon at the Air Force Association’s annual winter conference in Orlando.

The general said the program’s restructuring will stretch the System Design and Development phase out to 2015, two years later than planned.

The latest news from the Air Force rankled a congressional aide who follows the program. While the aide would not detail possible legislative language in reaction to the likely Nunn-McCurdyl breach and the IOC shift, it was clear that it will do nothing but reinforce lawmakers’ comitment to the F136.

I asked the aide in an email if lawmakers had concerns sparked by the latest news. Here’s the answer: “Certainly, since Gates sat there and basically said there was no change!” Then the aide swung into Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff: “We pretty much knew about Nunn-McCurdy and that Schwartz was just clueless and apparently had not been briefed. He has and will again acknowledge that next week.”

Then the aide swung back at Gates, saying that the demise of the F-22 means “there are now very few options for Gates or Congress. Anything done will result in greater costs in the long run. They have made their bed and now they are stuck with having to sleep with do do between the sheets. All staff can do is recommend to members that whatever screwed up program that they have that the risk to operational readiness is unacceptable without a competitive engine program. Everyone acknowledges this off the record, except Gates.”

Gen. Fraser told reporters at the AFA conference that the service is also looking at how that extension will affect the number of aircraft, trained aircrew and spare parts the service has available by 2013.

“The IOC focus is on combat capability, not on a date,” he said.

Join the Conversation

	John King February 22nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm Based on experience, I’d say there’s not a single DoD program that hasn’t technically breached Nunn-McCurdy. That is, once you filter out the “rebaselinings” and use the original baseline as a true reference. So, in the case of JSF (a program I’m very familiar with), there’s nothing new under the sun. This could be a comedy, if it wan’t a tragedy for our fighting men and women.
	William C. February 22nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm Wait, how is this supposed to help the F136 engine? Shouldn’t the cost growth be more reason to kill it?
	TMB February 22nd, 2010 at 6:17 pm Your 2nd bullet plus a time delay gives the F136’s proponents more time to keep that ball rolling.
	Byron Skinner February 22nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm Good Morning Folks, It looks like the industry and lobbyists are getting starting to panic and are getting a little concerned about the F-35, good old arm twisting on Congressmen. We bought and paid you now deliver. I’m not quite sure what LM doesn’t ungerstand about Gen. Norton Schwartz’s speech on the 18th. The Pentagon has fired a General who was a the Pentagon’s Program Manager, the guy on the other side of the table for LM still has a job. Note to Lockheed Martin executives there is a cryptic message here, you have already paid $600 million for not getting it the first time, now real slow… The F-35 program and it’s costs are starting to get the attention of the Tea Party, who’s only unifying position is the huge Federal Deficient. Although not even on the political horizon yet, this Libertarian based group will play a major role in this November Congressional Elections. It would be had to find any member of Congress that commit political suicide and crash and burn for the F-35. Industry and that peculiar institution of winger tanks, have done a great job of buying off Congress and the acquisition and procurement of the DoD, but to the PBR swilling Tea Party members they may be $12 billion to late. They already have Henry Paulson on the grill, and he is cooking slowly like good South Carolina Q. Will the F-35 be the next program pulled and shredded, and served up with white or red slaw and on a bun, with a PBR? ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Honorman February 22nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm Wish Collin would get a new source here. All his “Congressional Aide” ever talks about is supporting the alternate engine…yawn. Let’s hear from someone who really works defense issues and not a shill for corporate giant GE.
	Formula February 22nd, 2010 at 9:18 pm Gents, the F35 is here to stay. After all, the F22 was killed (not a smart move) and China is breathing down our neck with their Fifth Generation Fighter coming out in 2018–2010. Take into account the F35 slip to the right (2015) and we have no choice but to keep this program going or we will continue to loose our leading edge in technology to China and Russia. However, like so many of you point out, there needs to be changes. First, Mr President FIRE GATES!!!!. This guy has been around for years and he should be more to blame for the F35’s approaching breach of the N-M than Gen Hines was.…Hines was a scapegoat for Gates. Second, get rid of the top brass at LM on this program…I won’t mention names, we all know them…they have to go. Third, keep the Alternate Engine, this is one of the ONLY Programs associated with the JSF that is within budget, on time, and makes total sense.
	Gray Eagle February 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm Meanwhile, the Russians have unveiled a fighter that will make mincemeat out of the F-35. The F-35 was not designed for the air superiority mission, but was designed to do a series of missions reasonably well. Against the new Russian fighter (already flying) and the Chinese next generation fighter, the F-35 can only come in second best. Second place only pays off in horse racing, but not in combat.
	John King February 22nd, 2010 at 10:14 pm From an air superiority perspective, we need to hedge our bets and double the number of F-22s. But only after we wring a decent unit cost out of the contractor — LM. We don’t need the cost to be larded up with all their overhead. We need a rock bottom price with no frills.
	John King February 22nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm (1) “Cost growth” is typical not a reason to kill a program. It is simply the recognition that the program price and schedule was severely underestimated in the first place or, more likely, intentionally understated (DoD’s way of low balling a program to its own bosses and Congress). Back in 2000, when I headed up the first JSF joint program/budget review, we highlighted 7 major and 6 minor technology, logistics, training and related issues, and when they needed time wise to be dealt with. Only one (the number of flight test aircraft, and the problem closest in schedule ) was addressed (we added two test aircraft, later removed — any what is the current problem? Lack of test assets.). (2) I support the F136 engine because you get both competitive cost savings and a second technology should anything go wrong with the P&W F135. But here it has nothing to do with recoverying from the current delay. I believe it’s a recognition of the problems with the F135, which are still being down palyed.
	SpudmanWP February 22nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm Adding more money for the F136 just makes a NM breech more likely.
	@E_L_P February 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 pm The F-35 is obsolete vs. the growing threat. The F-35 was designed to do its work after the F-22 has cleared all the threats. Past the 2020s when the few 120 some combat coded F-22s start retiring, well figure it out. Hey, but first the F-35 has to actually fly in a tested form. They are so behind on flight tests its not funny. Gates doesn’t know what he doesn’t know about air power issues. IF the F-35 ever makes it into service it will still be obsolete. Capability surprise. http://tinyurl.com/yz5lk8c
	Formula February 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm The F135 is so far over budget (more than I care to say here), has technical issues that have not been surfaced yet, and the F135 has a Component Improvement Program (CIP) initiative in excess of tens of millions of US Tax Payer Dollars for the REDESIGN of its CORE ENGINE!!!!!!! And wait there is more, the Fan may be getting funding for redesign too. What is wrong with this picture America? The F35 for all practical purposes has exceeded the N-M criteria for cost, the F135 is over budget before you even consider the CIP initiative by about One Billion Dollars, P&W is building engines today that are not representative of their end product design because the CORE ENGINE and FAN will be redesigned later. So, the USG will have to spend an additional ten million dollars or so to RETROFIT those engines built today with the old CORE and FAN design.…what a business model.
	Formula February 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm CIP is a separate budget that is NOT under the JSF umbrella, but its still our TAX PAYER DOLLARS being used. Most law makers are not even aware of this CIP budget or what is even contained in it. I challenge the DoD, Dept of the Navy and Air force to investigate the CIP budget and see how much is earmarked for the F135 engine.…..lets make this PUBLIC. Lets face it, the F135 we are buying today IS NOT the F135 engine that will be the end state configuration. Wake up Gates, you have another issue here that’s been brewing under your watch…who are you going to blame for the engine snafu? So much for a “DERIVATIVE” engine.
	SpudmanWP February 23rd, 2010 at 4:47 am Guys, take a chill pill. CIP items are part of EVERY fighter engine program, and are very public. Here is the CIP for the F135 (Volume 3–349, page435). The F135 has it’s own CIP line item starting this year. Volume 3 = http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/… ELP, claiming that the F-35 will be obsolete by quoting an APA article is not helping your case.
	Laurie February 23rd, 2010 at 5:44 am In regards to the APA article ; I haven’t seen any article or comment that disagrees with their claims. Even LM who you would think would be talking up the JSF HAVE BEEN DEAFENING IN THEIR SILENCE.
	SpudmanWP February 23rd, 2010 at 6:24 am Here is a quote from that APA article: [Worse, the extreme agility of the PAK-FA will allow it to dodge the F-22A’s AIM-120 missile shots, while the Raptor will likely not be able to out-turn the more advanced Russian (and Chinese) missiles.] That is no plane that can pull the 20+ Gs necessary to dodge any modern AAM. LM has disputed the APA-like many times before. Here is one. http://www.jsf.mil/news/documents/20080919LM_RECO… Quotes from above: “In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois,” said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges.” The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35’s aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability. End Quotes… What specifically did you want LM to address?
	RSF February 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 am The shifting IOC is a reflection of the true dismal state of the F-35. And now with the arrival of the PAK-FA, the realization that the early demise of the F-22 was not such a good idea is starting to hit home. How long will it be before our international partners decide they should shop elsewhere? The JSF program is a perfect house of cards, and the future collapse will shake the US aerospace world to the core.
	RSF February 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 am SWP: Yes, an analysis that was created by pitting the F-35 against early 90’s SU-27 Flankers. Not a 5th generation competitor to the Raptor! The F-35 simply does not have the A2A performance to fighter with two engine analog of the F-22. And when will we see a fully functional F-35 with all its systems fully working that we can evaluate? How many more missed test flight schedules, and continuing technical problems will the US taxpayers be funding? At this point, the F-35 exists in small number of semi-flyable pre-production aircraft, with no weapons systems, and vaporware capabilities that live only in PowerPoint slides. And this entire sad mess is sucking billions of dollars of funds to create a fighter which has now been rendered obsolete.
	SpudmanWP February 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 am And by what measure do you think the PAK FA is better than the F-35? I can only think of one, raw maneuverability. How successful and fault-free has the PAK FA program been? Try not to throw stones in a glass house.
	@E_L_P February 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 am Spud-Anonymous internent handles don’t help anyones case.
	Chantelle February 23rd, 2010 at 10:06 am “That is no plane that can pull the 20+ Gs necessary to dodge any modern AAM. ” Who even thinks such things, let alone utters them? Best such people keep these kind of thoughts to themselves and keep everyone guessing rather than show the whole world they really don’t have any idea what they are talking about. Clearly has no idea of basic dynamics, let alone aerodynamics, let alone flying qualities. As for the LM anecdotes in http://www.jsf.mil/news/documents/20080919LM_RECO… What a joke. Nothing like some historical humour. Just a casual browse through the JSF Program monthlies shows the production is still not on any form of learning curve and is still a very long way from achieving what was being claimed back in September 2008, if at all. A prime candidate, replete with the JSF bible of BS, for joining the JSF cult — though may already be a card bearing member by the sounds of it. Simply amazing! In addition to the BS, gullibility is obviously one of the other engines driving this JSF program.
	O. Leo Leahy February 23rd, 2010 at 12:24 pm How’s retirement working out for you, Jack Welch?
	Tony C February 23rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm The F-35 is the only game in town, so it will become reality. The F-22A is very good, so good that it’s real capabilities aren’t ever made public. The Russian fighters and Eurofighter rely more on super maniverability to get the advantage over their oponents. The F-22A with vectored thrust has very good manuverability. The F-35 has no super manuverability features. This leaves the question of stealth and is the F-35 really that good to evade enemy fighters and missiles. The F-35 was not designed for air superiority, but as astrike fighter, The issue of costs was what drove the decision to cancel the F-22A and continue the F-35 program. Now that the costs are again an issue, it remains to be seen what comes next? The US Navy is probably tempted to cancel the F-35 and purchase more F-18’s at this point.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 4:08 pm Hello Erin. Misinformation…I don’t think so. I have first hand knowledge, plus “SPUDMAN” was nice enough to provide the link to the F135 CIP budget. Come on Erin, 26M in FY2011; 150M over the five year FYDP!!!!; again, for an engine that is NOT even fielded yet. The F135 is 20% of the CIP budget and the remaining 80% supports ALL the other USAF engines (total of 22,000 fielded engines). So, if I do the math correctly, 20% of the CIP budget is F135, there are about 22,000 fielded USAF engines, that means the F135’s portion would equate to 4400 engines.….I do not think there are that many F135’s in the USAF inventory today.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 4:08 pm Are you aware of the CIP’s charter? I am, I helped support it for over 20yrs? In short, CIP supports “FIELDED” engines that have developed TECHNICAL issues because of changes in mission and/or environment to head off “OPERATIONAL” deficiencies or problems before they become a MAJOR impact to the fleet. More importantly, CIP mainly addresses “SAFETY OF FLIGHT” issues impacting Military Aircraft. Again, you boast about the F119’s safety record and that the F135 is a DERIVATIVE engine, but the F135 in FY2011 will absorb 20% of the CIP budget to correct safety of flight issues and the engine is not assigned to an operational squadron yet. Please do not deny in this forum that the F135 engine requires a core engine upgrade/redesign to meet STOVL requirements. Moreover, do not deny that the F135 has programmed CIP funds to fund this upgrade/redesign.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm My main concern is the average US citizen is NOT aware of what the TOTAL F135 costs really are. Don’t get me wrong, I totally support the CIP Program for any engine, but when you have a budget like the F135 has, which is suppose to be a “DERIVATIVE” engine, I have an issue with that because I’m a tax payer and my portion is being abused. I wonder what portion of the remaining 80% is the F119’s?…I’ll have to dig that up too. It would be interesting to see just how much the two newest engines to power the USAF’s Fourth and Fifth generation aircraft are costing the US tax payer.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm Again, I challenge the DoD, the Departments of the USAF and Navy to look at the TOTAL picture for the F135; especially when the whole F35 Program is under scrutiny. I challenge them to consider what has been and what is programmed to be spent on the F135 when compared to the F136. And then, tell the American tax payer that the F136 engine is NOT needed and that competition is not required for this Multi-Billion Dollar Global Program. No, my name is not Jack Welch, but I am a retired American Military Serviceman who is deeply involved in Military Aviation and Military spending and I’m concerned that the public is being misinformed by people with personal agendas. PS Erin.……Keep in mind, even your F119 engine that you so heavily boast about was an “unproven” engine at one time.
	John King February 23rd, 2010 at 4:57 pm Regarding CIP, a search for some facts. As better engines are developed, wouldn’t the amounts required for fielded engines decrease on a per unit basis? Is there a way to show whether the CIP budget for F135 engines is less on a per engine basis than its F119 mother? Plus, American military strength and superiority has always rested in its redundancies.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 5:25 pm Maybe John. But, the reality is the F135 is almost a quarter of the USAF CIP budget today and its not even fielded or flying in a operational Wing ready to defend the US. Lets look at it this way. You just went out and purchased a NEW automobile for 30K and you were told that you can operate this NEW vehicle in rain or shine with no problems because its a “derivative” automobile. Well, you are out in your NEW 30K automobile and it begins to rain and you turn your windshield wipers on and they don’t work. Obviously, for your own safety and for the safety of others you terminate your mission and you pull over to the side of the road because you can’t see in the down pour. The weather clears and you are able to resume driving and your mission. You contact the manufacturer and they state that they are developing a fix for this problem under the CIP Program. The only catch, its going to cost you 1K out of your pocket to get it fixed. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
	Vsshooter February 23rd, 2010 at 5:31 pm Kill the F-35 and restart production on the F-22 an known platform. The money wasted on the F-35 could have put a lot more F-22’s in inventory.
	Steve February 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm Where are you getting your info from?
	John King February 23rd, 2010 at 6:48 pm Formula: The problem is that the F135 is in the CIP at all at this time! If its not out of development yet, all “fix” dollars should be directed there. Vsshooter: The F-25 is just the attack portion of the hi/lo mix of air superiority fighters and attack aircraft. I agree we need more F-22’s, but their early termination was driven by a magnified cost explosion of their own doing. And for which two parties are at fault — the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. As to the F-35, we need it in bulk since once the skies are clear, ground attack is the main military mission.
	Erin February 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm My previous post was incomplete and I’ve been unable to send the rest until now. Here is the rest of my post. Thanks, Erin You mentioned that the F135… “has technical issues that have not been surfaced yet.” Building the world’s most powerful, fifth generation fighter engine is a tall order. And indeed, there are challenges discovered along the way as both Pratt & Whitney and GE have experienced. In other words, having two engines also means having challenges with both. The alternate engine too has technical issues that have not yet surfaced. It’s the nature of building military propulsion systems that they are constantly improving when new and better materials, designs, manufacturing processes and technologies are discovered. Which leads me to your comments on the F135 Component Improvement Program. Why would we redesign the core of an engine that is performing exceptionally well and is built on a proven, mature platform? Your statement is simply untrue. We are not just building engines.…we are delivering production engines. Will there be changes and improvements to subsequent F135 engines due to improvements.…absolutely! That’s true of every military propulsion program. The JSF is a 30 year program. If I was the customer, I would be pretty disappointed if the engines delivered 20 years from now were the same as the ones delivered in 2010.
	Erin February 23rd, 2010 at 7:25 pm And of course, I must also point out that the alternate engine will ALSO have a funded Component Improvement Program. So now, instead of paying for just one…the U.S. taxpayers will get to pay for two. They will also get to pay for two production lines, two maintenance infrastructures, two sets of tools, two training programs and more. And in the end, this duplication will create more opportunities for issues that would adversely affect readiness and mission capability rates. The cost of funding the alternate engine has taken defense capability away from the JSF program by reducing the total number of aircraft produced to achieve our national security goals. In addition, an alternate engine actually reduces the learning associated with production which results in higher production cost, slower fleet maturity and increased fleet support cost.…all for an alternate engine that provides no additional security or military/defense capability for our fighting men and women. So I’ll ask the same question you did…“what’s wrong with this picture America!”
	Erin February 23rd, 2010 at 2:28 pm I’m not quite sure where you get your information related to the F135 engine, but it’s misinformation like this that continues to fuel this debate. I work for Pratt & Whitney so I actually have the facts, and the basis for your argument related to the F135 is totally false. The fact that the F135 engine is a derivative of the F119 engine powering the F-22 is a significant contributor to why the F135 is performing exceptionally well in flight test. It has achieved more than 13,000 test hours and the first production F135 has been delivered. The F119 is the most successful fighter engine ever fielded with an unmated safety record that offers a significant single engine safety advantage. This compared to the unproven alternate engine which is several years behind the F135 in development, has logged fewer than 100 hours of SDD testing and has yet to power a plane in flight.
	Byron Skinner February 23rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm Good Morning Folks, All this speculation on the F-35 is fine but nobody has answered the question why do we need the F-35, what will it do that we are not already doing? Many if not most of you who post here are getting checks from the defense industry, I would like to see you names and employers identified here so that we all know who is paying who. With out that information what ever you have to say represents nothing. I have nothing against industry giving their side of the issue it’s call debate and is very healthy but it should, no must be, done in a transparent way with accountability to be of any value to the issue. Like poster Eric said he works for P&W, and he gives a reasonable well though out argument for their engine, that lacking any rebuttal by the builder of the alternate engine is rather persuasive. Why can’t other manufactures be so straight forward. Speculation about both Russian and Chinese plans is fine and dandy but the truth is other then in press releases neither country is working on a 5th. Generation fighter. The recent article out of Claremont Institute on the Chinese 5th. Generation Fighter being operational by 2018–2020 was pure fiction. and comes from an AFP story. The document that the Claremont columnist should have got his information from speculated on or a date sometime around 2025. The most advanced fighter the Chinese has the J-12xxs, of which one was produced in 2008 was flown to Hainan Island, put in a hanger and not seen since. Note the J-12 is also the number China gave to another project in the 1980’s that, well didn’t fly. The recent PLAAF release on the issue of the 5th. Generation fighter neglects to mention the J-12xxs at all, but did mention numbers J-12xx, J-13xx and J-14xx. What does this mean, so far nothing. The document mentions that China was working on developing a vectored engine, so far all of the jet engines in Chinese built “J” series F/A aircraft have been from Russia, but hey things can change. China also said the were working on stealth technology and advanced sensor based systems. again where is it? The Russians efforts we have discussed here several times before so I won’t be redundant. Any 5th. Generation Russian aircraft will be made in India. In short the current Hot Rod of the PLAAF hasn’t flown since October, a total of 120 will be built for the PLAAF. The Russian Federated Security Forces have said they were good for 48 of any Su-35 that may be built, their bread and butter aircraft are 194 Mig-29’s and 168 Mig-31’s. Note of the Russian/Indian Su-35, India said the will take 160 but that still come up far short of a production run of 500 Su-35’s that India, who will build the aircraft says they need to break even. New customers have to be found but I doubt that Indian sales people will be knocking on doors in Beijing peddling the Su-35. Like the F-22 the F-35 is simply something that the US doesn’t need. The dollars would be better spent on platforms and weapons systems that we can get now that will help slow down and hopefully stop the economic hemorrhage happening in Afghanistan. The issues here are profits and jobs, which when national defense is concerned should not be issues. When Americans are being killed on foreign battlefields thinking about future needs and corporate profits is disgusting. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 8:34 pm Erin, I agree with you on all fronts, especially when it comes to building a high tech propulsion system with tolerances and operating temperatures most on this blog could only imagine. My main point here is making public the FACTS concerning the REAL costs to date associated with the F135’s development. You know you have issues meeting the STOVL requirement, you know P&W is over budget by One Billion plus, and its a fact that 150Million is being programmed under CIP for years 2011–2015. I agree you are building production engines, however, the engines you are building today will be retrofitted with redesigned hardware in the not so distant future at our expense. Having two production lines, two sets of tooling and all the “other” stuff you pointed out does not mean that the tax payer will necessarily pay more. The “Great Engine War” and the savings it provided and still provides to the US Government today is testament that having two engines in production does not have to cost more.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 pm More facts are the recent sales for both GE and P&W to Greece (F110 and F100 powered F16’s)Korea (F110 and F100 powered F15’s) and Saudi Arabia (recent retrofit from P&W F100 to GE F110), just to name a few over the past 8 years. The facts speak for themselves, the customers on the receiving end and manufacturers on the production side are still in business today selling both the F110 and F100 engines in the F16 and F15 platforms. Its plan and simple, competition breeds excellence, it decreases safety concerns, it reduces customer operating costs, it allows for flexibility and more importantly, it maintains Americas Leading Edge in Technology development. I spent 20 years in the USAF and worked the F16 and F15 programs. I managed Active, Reserve and Guard Units, I performed Depot planning for the F100 and F110 engines, I worked, budgeted and prioritized CIP initiatives for both the F110 and F100 engines, I worked Accident Investigations for both engines and I also monitored and gathered data pertaining to Unit Readiness and War Readiness Engine (WRE) reserves reporting the results to General officers.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm Having both the F100 and F110 engines in the F16 Fleet saw our “Readiness and Mission Capability rates” increase over time and not decrease as you point out the alternate engine would do to the F35. You also state “The cost of funding the alternate engine has taken defense capability away from the JSF program by reducing the total number of aircraft produced to achieve our national security goals”. If you truly are involved in the F35 program like you state, then you really are NOT engaged. Its a fact that the F136 funding has NEVER reduced any F35 aircraft purchases. Cost overruns by both LM (in billions) and P&W (about 1.9B) have and will continue to have SEVERE impacts to the end state production numbers for the F35. Data from several credible sources indicate that upwards of over 200 F35’s could be immediately cut from the original Program requirements due to the N-M breech that is fast approaching.
	Formula February 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm Finally, you stated: “In addition, an alternate engine actually reduces the learning associated with production which results in higher production cost, slower fleet maturity and increased fleet support cost.…all for an alternate engine that provides no additional security or military/defense capability for our fighting men and women”. Again, my experiences along with the results of recent F16 and F15 sales CLEARLY indicate the contrary to what you stated. If everything you mentioned in your rebuttal was true, then both GE and P&W would have been out of the F110 and F100 business long ago. It appears there is still a profit to be made by both manufactures of these engines today, and its also very clear that our FMS allies fly both engines to ensure the security and military/defense capability is maintained for their citizens. So why would America want ONE engine to power its Fourth and Fifth generation aircraft?
	Honorman February 23rd, 2010 at 9:19 pm So Formula, how long did you say you worked for GE or Rolls Royce? Pretty thorough answers for someone just following the program. Ha! What a tool. At least Erin had the courage to say who she works for.
	John King February 23rd, 2010 at 9:26 pm Well said, Formula. Especially the point that since the Pentagon cancelled the alternative engine in FY 2007, any “cancellation” after that (like the one Sec Gates just announced) is really an effort to stop money adds by Congress that weren’t in his budget anyway. And you’re right. Independently funded, they have absolutely no impact on the F135 or the F-35 budget and development. And BTW, Erin, the first production models go to the trainer squadrons, not the fleet or real combat units. That usually occurs in about the third production order. The point being that any engine problems can be fixed before they get to the fleet and combat units. But what is troublesome is the recurring declaration that we don’t need the F-35, instead buying more of the same. That would be true if the threat never changed. It may not be an air superiority fighter in the Air Force white scarf mode, but as a stealth type aircraft it can sneek up on almost anyone and shoot them out of the sky before they realize they’ve been targeted. Otherwise, we do need to replace aging combat aircraft on a regular basis.
	RSF February 24th, 2010 at 5:52 am While there have been many good posts regarding the various problems with the JSF program, the central issue remains. We are building a slower, lesser stealth, single engine strike fighter, and expecting it to carry the bulk of air superiority duties for all three services of the United States and our allies. Whats the problem with this? The problem is that the F-22 came first, setting the bench mark for air supremacy aircraft in the world to this date. And that bench mark stands, to be equaled by and surpassed if possible by other nations. We can’t take ten years of Raptor development and production, and now say to the rest of the world, well we really didn’t need it, stop production, and expect the that bench mark will go away. This flawed premise is the driver of the JSF program today, and independent of what Gates and the others think, the existence of the F-22 will continue to drive the fighter world long after production is stopped. How do we know that? From looking back through 50 years of prior fighter evolution and development leading to this point. The PAK-FA is a natural product of the continuing fighter race that was started by the Raptor, and our leadership should have understood that this would happen. Some of the other comments about the lack of a Chinese stealth fighter program are completely unsubstantiated by the truth. There is not one, but two stealth fighter programs going on in China, one for a single engine fighter like the F-35, and the other for a two engined air supremacy fighter like the F-22. The arrival of the PAK-FA is the beginning of a new 5th generation fighter race, that will be pushed by the competition for supremacy between China and India. The F-35 is already surpassed by many of the existing 4.5 generation fighters in performance, and will be dominated by the PAK-FA and the Chinese equivalents to come. The F-35 needs to be the 2nd tier of our fighter strength, with the Raptor being produced to at least the 300 aircraft. We need to return to proactive planning to fight all different types of wars, not just the insurgent conflicts we are involved in now. Either we start making sensible choices regarding air power, or the US and or allies will be relegated to watching from the bleachers while the fighter world leaves us behind.
	SpudmanWP February 24th, 2010 at 6:42 am You guys have missed something, the congressional adds DO add to the program total cost and DO bring teh program closer to the NM limits. If you look at this year’s (FY2011) budget they are part of the total cost. Here is the quote from the F-35 section. “Engine Unit Cost increase in FY10 reflects funding for F-136 Congressional Adds. FY11-15 program does not include funding for F-136 engine.”
	cjkosh February 24th, 2010 at 8:28 am Restart the F22. It’s been done with the B1, and if we weren’t so tight-assed about sharing a little tech with our staunchest allies, we would have Japan, Australia, and probably Britain on board to help drive down the costs of that “operational” platform. It would also give us the ability to have enough “air superiority” 5th generation fighters on-line to counter the new ramp up of Chinese and Russian 5th gen planes. The F35 might be a little outclassed against those by the time it’s finally available in quantity.
	Formula February 24th, 2010 at 12:39 pm Sorry Honorman, I get side tracked during deep blog. I’m a “Self Employed” Military Aviation Consultant with over 30years of DoD and Industry experience. It pays my bills to understand the facts concerning Military Aviation. Thanks for the respectfull comment on me being “thorough”.……I must be doing my job :-)
	Joe Katzman February 25th, 2010 at 5:57 am “…the F-35 has 9g capability” The USAF’s F-35A is supposed to. The F-35B STOVL is targeted for 7g capability, and the carrier-borne F-35C is targeted for 7.5g. No supercruise, no thrust vectoring, stealth declines to the sides and falls sharply at the rear. Apples to apples comparison needs to compare that to a similarly equipped F-16, which would be 2 AMRAAM or AIM-9x missiles on the wingtips, in evaluating relative aerodynamic performance in dogfights. The F-35’s embedded sensors hope to make that an irrelevant question in short range fights, but are not proven against full spectrum countermeasures. Radar performance, and ability to both defeat enemy missile shots (you can’t outmaneuver them, but they might lose lock from their own seekers) will matter at medium ranges, and you’d have to evaluate both the F-35 and its opponents. The comparisons aren’t as easy as some here would have you believe, but there are known facts to base them on. I do know that I am very, very skeptical of Lockheed Martin/ USAF studies and models. Those kinds of models have been very wrong before, and the incentives to be less than 100% honest are so large that they can be measured on the Richter scale.
	commentator April 9th, 2010 at 4:45 am the following webpage has many startling graphics of jf-17 aircraft : http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t184522.html

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

DoD Buzz

Hill Reacts to F-35 IOC Shift

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments