Home » Air » Hill Gets JSF Nunn-McCurdy

Hill Gets JSF Nunn-McCurdy

By Colin Clark Monday, March 29th, 2010 2:40 pm
Posted in Air, International, Naval, Policy

The Pentagon has officially notified Congress of the Joint Strike Fighter’s breach of legal cost growth limits, requiring a top-to-bottom review of the program.

The Senate and House armed services committees were told of the Nunn-McCurdy breach on Friday. Details were extremely scant. As the letter from Air Force Secretary Mike Donley said, they will provide details in the latest Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), due out “on or about April 2.” DoD thus complied with Ash Carter’s pledge that Congress would receive notification on or before or around April 1. Of course, this probably means they avoid the wonderful prospect of the JSF price increase getting lots of publicity on April Fool’s Day.

What does Congress think of the formal notification? Not much, if the two-word comment by one congressional aide is any indication: “Very unrequit(e)ing.”

If anyone has the Selected Acquisition Report and wants it to see some daylight, please send it to us soonest.

Join the Conversation

	Formula March 29th, 2010 at 7:14 pm WOW…what a surprise.
	Taxpayer March 29th, 2010 at 8:34 pm A Nunn-McCurdy is proof that DoD low-balled their estimate!
	Chris March 29th, 2010 at 11:24 pm JSF over cost??? NO WAY! This is a joke, this has been coming for years and everyone acts like they are suprised.
	pfcem March 29th, 2010 at 11:36 pm Bring it on. An honest review of the program rather than projections not based on the program is likely to show the latest cost projections to be higher than reality.
	@E_L_P March 30th, 2010 at 12:30 am Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expections. Funny though-we still intend to build scores of mistake-jets with little flight testing to back up the methods.
	Common Sense March 30th, 2010 at 1:13 am Doe it ever end! KILL THE PROGRAM. I hear the F22 is too expensive. How much money has been spent on the F35? The bigger question is how many F22 could we have bought with this money? This makes me angry to no end!
	DamaclesIam March 30th, 2010 at 2:04 am “An honest review of the program rather than projections not based on the program .…“ Mmmh! So all the cost projections, including those of the JSF PEO and contractors have not been based on the program! In fact, an honest review is what is needed. In 2002, it was said the F-35A JSF would cost about 35 million a copy in 2002 dollars — other variants each a little more. Now looks like costing at least 3 times as much and rising. Workers salaries have not gone up by 3, nor have the costs of the facilities and production infrastructure. The number of parts have not gone up by 3, nor the number of engines or the radars and other avionics. Even the proven parametric cost estimating measurand — weight — hasn’t increased three fold, though the weight increases make this machine a bit of a joke, flying wise. What you are seeing here are not cost increases but the original lies progressively being uncovered and revealed. Any honest review by experienced auditors and accountants or technocrats with project management experience with access to the data would, in less than a week, show this little puppy up for what it really is — a Fraud.
	DamaclesIam March 30th, 2010 at 2:06 am Why? Pretty hard to hide such a big multi billion dollar elephant in the room when you turn on the lights. And if people don’t think this hasn’t happened before and recently, they should cast their minds back and take a look at Enron, Lehman Bros and the GFC, just for starters. For all to consider.
	@E_L_P March 30th, 2010 at 4:30 am ” …about $77 million per copy.“ –Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Feb. 2008.
	GI Joe March 30th, 2010 at 7:19 am An absolute FUBAR mess… I shake my head.
	howard March 30th, 2010 at 7:46 am read posts suggesting this program be ‘cancelled’.… to which i say…DUDE;what’s the backup plane plan? (read elsewhere) that all the forces had skin in this planes eventual production as Air Force, Navy and Marine variants were in design and test. USAF-Multi-role aircraft (primarily air-to-ground) to replace F-16 and A-10 and to complement F-22. The Air Force JSF variant poses the smallest relative engineering challenge. The aircraft has no hover criteria to satisfy, and the characteristics and handling qualities associated with carrier operations do not come into play. As the biggest customer for the JSF, the service will not accept a multirole F-16 fighter replacement that doesn’t significantly improve on the original. USN-Multi-role, stealthy strike fighter to complement F/A-18E/F. Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy version and the other JSF variants. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces to better manage low-speed approaches. The internal structure of the Navy variant is strengthened up to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested landings. The aircraft has a carrier-suitable tailhook. Its landing gear has a longer stroke and higher load capacity. The aircraft has almost twice the range of an F-18C on internal fuel. The design is also optimized for survivability. USMC-Multi-role Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) strike fighter to replace AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D. The Marine variant distinguishes itself from the other variants with its short takeoff/vertical landing capability. UK-STOVL (supersonic) aircraft to replace the Sea Harrier. Britain’s Royal Navy JSF will be very similar to the U.S. Marine variant.…’ don’t think they are going to cancel this program. they may hold hearings and screw with it endlessly, but somethings going to pop out at MILLIONS each. ‘…
	@E_L_P March 30th, 2010 at 11:56 am Yes.…. a miscarried gold-plated baby.
	Formula March 30th, 2010 at 12:43 pm Gates has got to go or this trend will continue. Competition must be instilled in our acquisition process. Quarterly reviews with the SecDef, Program Managers and the Contractors should be scheduled for the JSF until the Aircraft is fielded for Operation.
	Josh March 30th, 2010 at 12:53 pm Yeah.… it’s almost as frustrating as the endless litany of people on this website that think the F-22 and F-35 are aircraft with interchangable roles.
	wstolpa March 30th, 2010 at 1:09 pm The motto of government agencies planning anything should be “We can’t get anything right”. No surprises here. If anything came in on or under budget that would be the real shock.
	robert March 30th, 2010 at 1:25 pm First the F-22, now the F-35, too much money spent. If the F-35 gets shut down — lot sof $ wasted. I can remember when it only took 5 years to field a fighter aircraft. That was the F-15 series. 1968 with go ahead and 1972 was 1st flight. with squadron deployment by 1976. Maybe, we should bring the F-16 back into production and keep the F-18E/F going. At least these aircraft are known quantities.
	RRBunn March 30th, 2010 at 1:26 pm Program pre-dates Mr. Gates. All aircraft programs have sticker shock. For those of us old enough to remember, the F-14 adn F-15 had similar problems. The F-16 / F-18 were born of the need for a low cost aircraft to balance the air superiority fighters. The biggest advantage is stealth. The aircraft can be detected but will have much greater ability to penitrate defenses, better weapons and sensors and should benefit from other tech advances.
	SwR March 30th, 2010 at 2:51 pm F-15 is still in production
	Weaponhead March 30th, 2010 at 5:41 pm So where’s the $614 million? http://www.airforcetimes.com/community/opinion/ai… Yes, we have to hold non-performing programs accountable (at least until the cameras are off).
	pfcem March 30th, 2010 at 5:49 pm DamaclesIam, JET projections are NOT based on the program itself but based on the host of programs in the past. The latest cost projections are based on JET II. The program IS NOT 30 months behind schedule but ~6 months & LRIP production cost has been BELOW projections. No, in 2001 the average unit production cost of the (2852) F-35 was $50.2 million (FY2002 dollars) — budget documents project flyaway cost ~85% of total production cost. The F-35A would be a bit less than that with the F-35B & F-35C being ~$10 million more than the F-35A. The cost of the F-35 IS NOT RISING! It is DECREASING. Significantly with each & every lot.
	Firefox March 30th, 2010 at 7:56 pm So much for a jet so much in favor by SecDef Gates. Overweight, draggy, underpowered, plagued A-7 of today with a pricetag of F-22. Russians and PRC must be laughing out loud, as their major ally is now the head of Pentagon. Gates must go, USAF leadership (Donley and Schwartz) must go, and take Ashton Carter with them as a special bonus. They still have their hands in the F-22 killing cookie jar, they were repeatedly openly lying to Congress about its status, both technical and financial. F-35 is a F-111 of today and the sooner it gets killed the better.
	William March 31st, 2010 at 8:15 pm The Air Force thinking this can replace the A-10 is a joke in itself!
	Realism April 1st, 2010 at 2:14 am To realistically expect everything in this world to come out on time with everything working properly and no bugs is to be a fool. Nothing in this world is perfect and to take a jet that is essentially more unstable then an F-16 and to expect it to be completed and produced at original estimates without setbacks, which might I add is the US Government going to the LOWEST bidder mind you is unrealistic and completely absurd… And to say let’s just use old fighters and stick with them… that’s just stupid, I love the old girls as much as the next guy but its old and for the US to remain on top, we need to update our aircraft with the times.
	DoctorGlob April 1st, 2010 at 8:14 pm Well, I’ve lost count of how many times the DoD guys have said Nunn McCurdy was coming, so it can’t be considered news.
	Jim April 3rd, 2010 at 4:03 pm Your right about that, but the Liberals, Progressives don’t want a Military that is strong, they think that if we just give our enemies a big hug , we wouldn’t have to go to war or need a Military. If these overages continue it’s going to give Obama the reason why the F35 should be cancelled.

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 Gets JSF Nunn-McCurdy

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments