Carter Orders JSF Changes

Drake1 March 1st, 2010 at 11:34 pm

The only way out is to suspend further production until a radically revised flight test plan is executed: make it a fly before buy program,” Wheeler said in an email.
////////////////
If this approach had been adopted from the beginning, we may have had more aircraft (for lower cost) in the long run.

Drake1 March 2nd, 2010 at 7:29 am

The F22 wasn’t all that different, it’s just that JSF is that much worse.

Chantelle March 2nd, 2010 at 8:09 am

The advertised/marketed capabilites of the JSF will only ever be about a third those of the F-22.

As to whether the JSF Program can deliver on these promises, if at all, is highly problematic.

Why?

Too many artisans in highly refined BS are involved.

John King March 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Only pay out the $614M incentives if progress is made? Hey! If you miss meeting your objectives, you don’t earn the incentive payment. Period. It goes back into the taxpayer pocket. There is new money associated with each year’s contract, so there is money available to reward LM if they do well (or as expected) for each subsequent period separately. But you don’t give them money they have already forfeited. If you do, then they’ll be rewarded with all the incentive funds for being consistently late. Taxpayer loses. I’d almost believe this was a conspiracy, if I already didn’t know there is a unbreakable symbiotic relationship (like a shark and its pilot fish) between the company and the government.

aerooooooooo March 2nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm

f-35 is over. some russian and french plane was better of f-35 for one low price (when one price was fixed for the f-35,one realistic price).
potential export market was lose. india choose 4th gen fighter class, and build with russia 5th gen class.
–in middle east (uae,koweit,qatar) will buy the rafale.
–in africa who can buy this rafale before 2030?
–south america can’t buy that now and choose local prod (brazil) for f-18, rafale,gripen ng plane.
–europe, no one can buy the number of plane ( in 2001) when one unit cost was estimated 50mil$/ea. GB first partner have reduce the number of plane . netherlands,denmark search one good solution about the f-35. italy have viewed for 120 plane for 50mil$/ea and not 150mil$ (or more , see later). switzerland and greece is going to take european plane.
–asia, s.korea will make their own plane, japan have new governement and they don’t give advantage for american.australia search alternative solution.
when nothing have signed, f-35 can’t be sell in these country
n.america, usa reduce number of planes (more than 1000),usnavy prefere take f-18 (for save their carrier ) .
canada will cut number of plane and buy f-18 in the place of f-35

SpudmanWP March 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm

John,

If you look at the FY2011 budget, the USAF is getting 22 F-35As ($149mil Flyaway) in FY2011 and plan on 24 F-35As ($140mil Flyaway) in FY2012. For a relatively flat follow-on order, and including inflation, this is a decent reduction in production costs.

FY2011 USAF budget

http://​i619​.photobucket​.com/​a​l​b​u​m​s​/​t​t​2​7​1​/​S​p​u​d​m​anW…

John King March 2nd, 2010 at 8:58 pm

Actually, back in 2000, when I first looked at the JSF program, the flyaway unit costs were supposed to be about $80M for the USMC B VSTOL, $65M for the Navy (hard carrier landing, wider wingspan) C version, and about $40-45M for the USAF cheap version. While pushing the development out does nothing but give the contractor more profits, it does nothing to get our fighting men and women the tools they need to defend our country. More people inside the Pentagon who “managed” this program and at LM need to be fired.

John King March 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm

As to the recurring discussion about the F-35 getting blow out of the sky…mixing apples and oranges. The USAF F-15 and its F-22 successor, and the Navy F-14 and its F/A-18 E/F successor are the air-superiority fighters. The F-35 is the attack companion, not the dog fighter. Although, with its stealth capabilities and internal weapons bay, it can sneak up on an enemy and take them out with a missile.

seesthrubs March 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 am

“I’ve witnessed in several forums people comparing the F22 to the F35. Two totally different missions and both will replace diferent legacy aircraft .”

True and I would agree if the F-35 was purely a strike aircraft but when the F-35 is being marketed and sold as an air superiority solution then people have every right to question its capability in this role — and im not just talking about the foreign partners who want to use it as a jack of all trades, the US, as im sure you are aware, intend to supplant the F-22 with the F-35 as the primary(/majority) air superiority platform.

Cocidius March 3rd, 2010 at 3:08 am

Perhaps a little injection of reality on the true costs of the JSF program is in order, from a source that has been very accurate to date.

The 2009 JET report forecast that the F-35 will be the most expensive fighter in history, with a 1 trillion dollar total program cost (see attached):

http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​0​6​3​5​6​.​pdf

John King March 3rd, 2010 at 5:16 pm

Every new program is the most expensive in history. But JSF has two other reasons for being so.

First, it a a joint program — USAF, USN, USMC. Just AF or just N/MC wouldn’t have resulted in being the most expensive. Second, in a smart management move, it includes all the weapons systems testing for things it carries. Traditionally, the R&D or development program typically handles only the first 4 or 5 items (e.g., one bomb, one air-ro-air missile, one air-to-ground missile, a FLIR pod, etc.). The other 30 or so items are paid for (and therefore, hidden) in the operation and maintenance (O&M) budgets. JSF pulls 40 such weapons certifications into its development, which added about 20% to total R&D costs. A third reason is technology, labor and materials costs keep growing, even on a constant dollar basis. So nothing is ever cheaper as a whole.

On the other hand, JSF did turn the unit cost curve downward because it employees CAD-CAM and other engineering “advances” through the entire supply chain which act to drive costs down.

Hitch Hiker March 4th, 2010 at 6:59 am

You bet King and if you believe “advances” through the supply chain will reduce costs then you believe government-run health care is going to save a trillion dollars in (so many) years. Just ask the CBO. Anyone want to bet against F-35 and health care costs going up (whether Barry’s plan passes or not)? I was once taught the inevitability of death, taxes and the Air Force wanting a new fighter. What was neglected in that lesson plan was the certainly that fighter costs would increase and schedules would not be met. We grow older but no wiser.

Tony C March 4th, 2010 at 11:52 am

I remember these same type arguments placed on the F-15 during development and the F-18 during development, yet both turned out to be superb aircraft for the missions they were envisioned to perform.
The cost of development are high, even higher for stealth airframes. The issue to consider for the future is are manned fighters relevant. The US Navy wants UCAV’s and all the services are upgrading or developing new unmanned systems. My personal opinion is the manned fighter gives you better situational awareness and control in a combat situation. The F-35 has been touted by the SecDef because it was supposed to be significantly cheaper than the F-22A. If this is not the case, cancel the F-35 and purchase more F-22A’s. Let the US Navy develop their UCAV’s and purchase more F-18E/F’s. Then the services will get part of what they wanted from the beginning. Bombing missions can be achieved with unmanned systems or missiles anyway.

2Wheels March 4th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

Cocidius…

“Borrowing Parts from other aircraft” has occured on every program in aircrat history and is well known officially to our customers. Do more homework before you slam this program — as it has broken more SDD phase records (in a positive light) than any other program you’ll be able to find in modern history.
There are thousands of vendors to this program and parts availability will ALWAYS need ironing out in the early phases. Do you not know this?

Are you so shallow as to think these aircraft are going to be delivered without thorough testing? Do you think the government would allow such?

Flip March 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

The F-35 is a totally different platform than the F-22 designed for a different mission. It is not designed for A/A combat, nor is it as stealthy as the F-22. With the advent of other planes from the Russian/Asian front, the F-22 is still very much needed and the F-35 will not perform the same mission, no matter what anyone says. Regarding the testing, this airplane has already undergone more testing before the first flight than ten F-16’s did after they had been flying over a year. Just because it wasn’t in the air doesn’t mean that with modern testing facilities and methodology it isn’t sufficiently being tested. That is all a smoke screen. And, every time you have a joint project, you can bet there is going to be issues that are not related to the hardware.

Bill R. March 4th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

So here is my ground pounder perspective on all this. For close air support, we need precision and responsiveness. While UAV platforms have some ability to deliver precise strikes, SA is limited. I’m not convinced that you will get the responsiveness you need from a platform that is remotely operated, much less a UAV in autonomous mode. If you could get away with that, all you would need are appropriately packaged cruise missiles. I know there are parts of the Air Force that are enamored of standoff precision, but the combat record in Serbia/Kosovo and Lebanon ain’t all that hot when those tactics were used, so there is much room for good old fashioned treetop level bomb runs. If you think otherwise, give the money to Army and bring back Commanche.

Doc March 4th, 2010 at 8:15 pm

Too late to add more F-22s at the last reported cost — SECDEF, Obama and Congress had to act a year ago when the early part of the production line was winding down. By now many component producers have built the last set of parts as it takes about 3 years from order to delivery. This means a production break has occurred — overcoming it would cost big bucks as layoffs and some shutdowns have taken place.

tabacman March 5th, 2010 at 12:29 am

What will we take to the air with in 2030 when the airframes for the F22 start fading?
What a/c program in history has been on budget, on time, and on tech targets?
What technological breakthrough will be had for future airframes if you discontinue the last major advanced tech development program of this scale and scope?
If you give it up and assume old tech is good enough — then that’s exactly what you will end up with — good enough. And by 2030 that will mean the end of superior airborne weapon platform (with a driver at least).
If there are budgetary problems — by all means address them. Prioritize what you want to do. This program fell victim to too much expectation (multi-role, multi-force platform) and too little expectation of the costs of integrating something we have never done before. One plane to concievably cover the missions of roughly 4 or 5 separate ones isn’t a bad idea — its just one that hasn’t really been done to this level — and hence the woeful under estimations of time, material, and money required.
Frankly the nonsense about testing aircraft before you fly is a ruse at best. The REAL test of aircraft is operating them in theatre and under duress. Deny it if you want but it is true. We learned a lot from the F22 and will learn a lot from the F35 — but only if it gets out and flies. The easiest, safest, cheapest planes on earth are the ones on paper — they can’t fail and they can’t succeed.
Put it in the hands of the guys out on the deck and see if it really is worth building more. Test regimes only tell me about what I THINK should happen — they tell me only so much about what really happens.
onejetjock — you should get it man — and I hope its everything and more that you guys need.
If we as taxpayers have a problem with money then I posit we have a LOT of other low hanging fruit we can clip first… some alluded to and millions/billions more that weren’t.
Keep up the good work here on the buzzsite!

JTS March 5th, 2010 at 5:07 am

Hummm. What’s REALLY wrong with this whole F-35 picture? How about what is really needed isn’t a 4th generation fighter, but an air-to-mud alley-cat fighter that: fights in dirty places; loiters for a long time, i.e., sips gas like a miser, and has huge self-sealing fuel tanks; is highly survivable against small arms and battlefield anti-acft threats; can drop/shoot highly lethal stuff all day, and can insert smart weapons in the cranial orifices of cave dwelling idiots; can fly low and slow enough to put iron/lead on target with superior accuracy; can be modified to operate off of carriers. Gee, let’s see here, hummmmm. WOW! Here’s a thought: reopen the WARTHOG assembly line, and make an ENTIRE air force and navy of A-10s for the cost of, oh, adozen F-35s??!?!?!?! Shoot, this is even cheaper that making ROVs (which in case nobody’s noticed are getting ever more EXPENSIVE!

AV8R March 5th, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Here’s how these big-ticket ACAT 4D programs are structured:
1. Promise fantasy capabilities based on immature, unproven technologies.
2. Price it low with unrealistic hand-waving savings assumptions.
3. Promise it early.
4. Spread the spending around to the districts of influential lawmakers.
5. Spend lots of money early without generating any real product to get the government invested.
6. Start the delay game, blaming the delays on “technological difficulties” (see step 1)
7. Increase the cost, blaming it on step 6.
8. Repeat steps 6 and 7 as many times as you can, realizing that once the government has invested $billions, it will be extremely reluctant to walk away from the sunk costs. (I’ve often said that if the government were in the oil drilling business, once it began to drill there could only be two outcomes that would terminate the effort — strike oil or come out the opposite side of the Earth!
My observations are based on a 42 year career as a military aviator, flight test engineer, and consultant to DoD (in the acquisitions area).

Unibrowser March 10th, 2010 at 7:23 am

I’ve spent 36 years in the aerospace industry and heard the baloney before. If the government and the politicians would leave the engineering to the people who know what they’re doing instead of changing the requirements from day to day and month to month, we might see reasonable cost containment.

Northop tried to do just what was suggested by Drake1 on the F20 and got burned because of it. The B-1B cost were driven up because every congressman wanted a piece of the pie. Still, that program produced 100 aircraft under cost and ahead of schedule.

Now, no one contractor can take on be the prime contractor, but must be part of a team of contractors. The contractor team must now accept foreign partners from multiple countries. The supply chain is now unimaginable and bulky„„ and we’ve only started.

cfwittel March 19th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

The Government gets what it deserves. Secretary Gates cancels the orders for additional F-22s, retires additional F-16s, F-14s. Our commander and chief is a joke. Our secretary of defense is a joke. Both of these men are idiots. Any time that the priority of the Government is on a Healthcare Bill over the defense of the Citzens of the United States, there are goining to be dire consequences. Unfortunately, all of this is taking place at a dangerous time were terriorists are plenty, and ready to bomb us at any time. If our nation is over-run by terrorists, we only have ourselves to blame, for voting both of these people into our Capital in Washington D.C. Next time, vote republican!

Sincerely,
C.F. Wittel