Home » Air » F136 Phony Competition, LCS Good

F136 Phony Competition, LCS Good

By John Reed Tuesday, November 16th, 2010 6:40 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

Pentagon acquisition boss Ashton Carter today once again defended the Defense Department’s choice to forgo competition for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter engine program while delivering a speech on how the Pentagon can buy smart in a time of flat defense budgets.

“We can’t afford to buy two of everything,” said Carter during a speech at the Center for American Progress in Washington today. He added that the push to compete the GE-Rolls Royce F136 alternate JSF engine against Pratt & Whitney’s F135 will not result in “real competition.” Instead, the effort will result in two manufactures receiving “directed buys” to various JSF customers. He also reiterated the Pentagon’s claim that it will take another $2.9 billion to get the F136 ready to compete against the F135.

“You’d have to imagine that you were going to get that $2.9 billion, and savings back, by a competitive procees which as I just explained is doubtful,” said Carter. “For those reasons, {Defense Secretary Rober Gates] concluded that this was not real compitition, this was what he calls ‘Washington competition’.”

This comes a day after Rep. Buck Mckeon, presumed to be the next chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said he wants to see continued funding for the F136.

While denouncing the notion of a competition for the F136, Carter held up the U.S. Navy’s recent decision to buy both classes of Littoral Combat Ship due to lower than expected bid prices as an example of what a good competition can do. The service had originally planned to buy only one class of LCS following a competition between Austal USA and Lockheed Martin’s designs for the ship.

The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer went on to say that the Pentagon will continue to scrutinize programs for every possible way to save money, from narrowing down requirements that threaten to derail the U.S. Navy’s next generation ballistic missile submarine program (SSBN-X) to closeley watching the requirments of the so called family of long range strike systems being developed by the Pentagon and even the VXX presidential helicopter program.

Even with such attention to detail, the DoD may have to embark on a new set of programmatic cuts similar to the ones that happened in the spring of 2009, Carter warned.

Join the Conversation

	William C. November 16th, 2010 at 7:07 pm The concept behind LCS was good, the execution however leaves much to be desired. The entire F-35 program is on shaky enough ground already. I say for the time being we halt government funding of the F136. In a few years, if F-35s are rolling off the production line in the hundreds as planned, then lets take another look at the F136.
	dowjones November 16th, 2010 at 8:55 pm Yet another harvard hack who shares Barry’s desire to gut the US military’s power projection capabilities. Hence, no F-22, no F-35, No ABM system for Eastern European Allies but billions for TWO types of 3000 ton speedboat chasers.…perhaps two are required to double the littoral self esteem of muslims…
	@E_L_P November 16th, 2010 at 9:00 pm Faith-based program management and faith-based acquisition. The LCS is of no real use. It is a corvette with a destroyer price tag. Buying two of a faulty design to double the pain. Great plan. There may not be a need for the alternate engine for the F-35. After all, who wants to pay to develop two motors for a jet that won’t see more than a few hundred built before it is cancelled? Funny though for the Pentagon to claim a large number of F-35s to be built yet Carter and crew have no problem buying hundreds of low-rate initial production (LRIP) mistake jets for over $50B. The LRIP 4 deal is so good for the taxpayer that they can’t even announce firm details. When they do, don’t look at the supposed unit cost. Look at the fine print of award fees to the vendor and how those will get split up if the vendor is late (yet again). Btw, when will full-rate production start now after what will be the further reorganisation after the 13 month slip stated earlier this year? FR was 2013 then 2014 now 2016. Lets see where that is after the late November meeting. Eglin AFB was supposed to take on 2 LRIP aircraft this month so operational training could start. Instead these two jets will get instrumentation put on them and get shipped out to Edwards so-as to help development flight testing. Eglin now claims they will get their training jets in Sep 2011. Hard to believe, given the consistency of slips in this program.
	STemplar November 17th, 2010 at 2:55 am The F22 and F35s with their limited combat radii envisioned for the European theater project zero power. We need to project power in the western Pacific and you need far longer legs than the F22 and F35 have to do that effectively. I am just fine with no ABM system for Europe period. Our NATO ‘allies’ have never lived up to their treaty GDP spending %s and frankly it is time for Europe to defend Europe and time for the US tax payers to stop underwriting the costs of their bloated social welfare systems.
	Robert A. Fritts November 17th, 2010 at 3:21 am If it is time for our European/NATO allies to pull their weight, it is also time for our Asian Allies to pull theirs. Let Japan, Korea, Phillipines and Austrailia pay for their own Air defence, Aircraft, Carriers, ships and Ground forces! The American Taxpayer can no longer do this. Its time to stop trying to “Project Power” in the Western Pacific, We will pay for everything East of Maui. The only country that wanted to do its share, Taiwan, was always pushed aside by US Administratins to politic with the Chicoms. As far as I’m concerned it would be easier to deal with when its all just part of China.
	Formula November 17th, 2010 at 8:25 am Ashton Carter is just another puppet in the DoD mainstream. It still amazes me how he and others will point fingers at the F136, but they don’t address the real issues that are REALLY impacting the F35 cost overruns and schedule slips. But, he’ll support the LCS game plan.…go figure. He needs to be replaced.
	BOOMER November 17th, 2010 at 9:21 am Carter is as clueless about military gear as Gates and the rest of the Arms comittie. A lot of this falls back onto the DoD as well because they dont have the right people involved in establishing the requirements to lay down the specs and blue prints. All is done with Officers with no maintenance expieriance and engineers with no military background at all. They need to get elisted personnel involved from step one, the ones that have to maintain and operate most of this gear. If they had went with the recommendations of SWCC and SEAL teams for LCS they would have been able to do it off the shelf for a whole lot less than what we have been stuck with. And while I see a need for a new gen fighter I would rather had seen more put into a new gen long range heavy bomber for carrier ops to replace the void left by the A6 Intruder, maybe just a simple slightly larger four engine model with twice the payload and range in stealthy skin version of the original, would require only minor changes to the original drawings updating avionics to digital and start construction within 1 year “KISS” (keep it simple stupid).
	Thompson November 17th, 2010 at 10:05 am Problems: – Wanting all things from all platforms results in challenging requirements and high cost – Cost today is only concern and saving money in future is hard to prove – Higher cost in one money pot (Shipbuilding) that will save money in another pot (Operations, Personnel, etc) is not rewarded
	Roger November 17th, 2010 at 10:11 am It is funny how blatantly hyopocritical the bio-sphere of the Pentagon can be. Seems like “competition” is in the eye of the DoD beholder.…… They subjectively apply it whenever DoD wants to push a specific acquisition agenda. Carter invokes the $2.9B DoD would have to pay GE-Rolls Royce to continue to develop the engine. Here’s a crazy notion. Make the contractor use thier profits to develop thier own product if they want to compete for DoD business. Over the past 15 years DoD started paying companies to develop products to “reduce program risk” in Acquisition language. It quickly became the norm, and why wouldn’t it if DoD is offering to take the financial risk out of product development for business. The same type of government funding we criticize European countiries for supporting btw.
	Roger November 17th, 2010 at 10:12 am DoD would actually reep the benefit of competition by simply using the competitive process the way its intended to work. Any company who has a productt hey feel meets DoD’s stated needs, should to be offered the opportunity to be competitively evaluated on their OWN dime. DoD needs to quit characterizing competition as inherently more expensive, especially when it is a monster DoD created, and one DoD can control. However, they need to quit manipulating the marketplace like an insider trader and let the system work. Hold companies accountable for the developmantal risk, and they will invest if they want to compete.
	BOOMER November 17th, 2010 at 10:32 am Problem is absolutely non of the contractors are willing to front anything anymore to compete for contracts, everything is done on paper these days. Often times the contractors dont even have the equipment to produce a product (or real skill) they buy it after contract award, some dont even know exactly where they will be doing manufacturing just what state it will be done in. The system is a real mess and has ticked me off more than once trying to get production off the ground for something simple.
	Roger November 17th, 2010 at 11:03 am I don’t disagree with your assessment of what has become the “norm”. Isn’t that he job of DoD tohonestly evaluate these proposals and measure their levels of maturity and risk? If a contractor is offering nothing more than a paper plane, when you need a real plane, right now, that should be a significant discriminator? DoD used to be able to accomplish a successful evaluations, and force the companies to leverage thier own risk. Along with FFPI contracts, needs to be a competitive process. DoD can put this genie back in the bottle if they are not so obviously subjective about which programs they want to compete and those they don’t.
	Bill R. November 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am This is just wrong…I defy anyone to say that the Aussies don’t pull their own weight. Japan has issues with maintaining a “defense” force — their recent dust-up with China demonstrates how much they really do need out help. Korea is fine, their job is to defend themselves, and we don’t need to be giving any of these nations an incentive to address the WMD threat by themselves going nuclear. That applies to Taiwan as well. As far as the Phillipines are concerned, we screwed that one up during the Marcos years. Would it help our burden sharing problem if we got back into Subic Bay ? Makes no sense.
	Obviousman November 17th, 2010 at 11:15 am …and the a government that wants weapons systems to be everything to everyone and makes requirements a moving target has no part in the blame? Wake up jackwagon!
	Weaponhead November 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am 1. $2.9B is in the noise for the F-35 cost over-runs. So is trying to save $2.9B a good enough reason to provide a monopoly to one engine supplier without even competing for that monopoly (while the program as a whole is projected to be $200B over cost)? 2. Compare the $2.9B purported costs of 2 engine suppliers with the $58B being spent on LRIP F-35s that will be built before the completion of the flight test program. Which one is the bigger waste of resources. Why do Carter and Gates only recognize one of these as waste? What will the proce be to fix these LRIP jets after the deficiencies are found? Where is that cost? The answer will be just buy more new F-35s and we’ll throw those away. continued
	Weaponhead November 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am Continued… 3. Never before has the US put so many of its TACAIR eggs in one basket . A single engine problem could render our ability to both project power and/or defend to be severely compromised. Could that risk be worth spending $1.8B to $2.9B? 4. What will the added costs to the DoD be if only P&W engines are available. What baragining power will the DoD have? This is a red herring issue to cover-up the complete incompetence of the entire F-35 program and DoD Acquisition.
	Oblat November 17th, 2010 at 12:48 pm This is just rubbish put out by self serving defense contractors. Take the JSF — they make a profit on the R&D and then it costs $130 million each for production where there is no requirements process. Where are the requirement changes that the F35 had that means it will take 20 years to get working ? They simply don’t exist, unless you count making sure the thing actually flies as a change in requirements. This is how the system works — defense contractors screw up the engineering they get caught and then they complain that there is too much oversight and that there are requirements changes.
	Oblat November 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm Taiwan is a good case in point. Its defense expenditure is 2% of GDP compared to 5% in the US. Now they say they don’t want to buy updated air defense and F16s because they cant afford it. Even the states on the “front line” know that a expensive military means nothing if it drags down your economy. Those that want the empire to be pulled in while maintaining the military welfare state for them and their friends are whistling in the wind. The exact opposite is likely to happen. The irony is that many of those that want to cut social security will soon be dependent on it.
	Oblat November 17th, 2010 at 12:57 pm Man up that’s what every supplier in the real economy has to deal with. The constant claims that the defense contractors are too lazy or stupid to cope are just a red herring they are just too greedy to face real competition
	pfcem November 17th, 2010 at 1:04 pm Earth to Oblat. The cost of the F-35 is going down with each & every production lot. Full rate production F-35s will cost MUCH less than $130 million each. You have no clue hoe the system works.
	William C. November 17th, 2010 at 1:06 pm Military welfare state? The reality is Oblat that the military is the thing that gets cut in order to fund the actual welfare state. Take the UK as a grand example of this. Stop drinking the kool-aid Oblat.
	pfcem November 17th, 2010 at 1:36 pm Get your facts correct. FY2010 US defense budget was 3.65% of GDP (prior to 9/11/01 it was down to 2.9%). EVEN INCLUDING SPENDING ON THE WARS IN IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN it was 4.7% on denfense. Taiwan is NOT a good case in point.
	Roger November 17th, 2010 at 1:58 pm It is funny how blatantly hyopocritical the bio-sphere of the Pentagon can be. Seems like “competition” is in the eye of the DoD beholder.…… They subjectively apply it whenever DoD wants to push a specific acquisition agenda. Carter invokes the $2.9B DoD would have to pay GE-Rolls Royce to continue to develop the engine. Here’s a crazy notion. Make the contractor use thier profits to develop thier own product if they want to compete for DoD business. Over the past 15 years DoD started paying companies to develop products to “reduce program risk” in Acquisition language. It quickly became the norm, and why wouldn’t it if DoD is offering to take the financial risk out of product development for business. The same type of government funding we criticize European countiries for supporting btw.
	Taxpayer November 17th, 2010 at 4:09 pm “Faith-based program management and faith-based acquisition.” I like that! (1) Competition always saves money. The Raytheon people put up their own money to compete in the Phoenix missile program, and they won the lion’s share when they did. (2) Involving engineers and maintainers in program design is a great idea. (3) Life cycle costs should be part of the platform decision process, and if it was, that LCS trimiran would be a no-go. (It’s going to be a maintenance nightmare.)
	Terry Johnson November 18th, 2010 at 7:20 am Eric, Great post, as usual. Though, I am less negative on the LCS than I used to be. Industry IS working to reduce hull costs: good thing. My personal opinion is that we should do away with two combat systems and and settle on one demonstrated combat system, perhaps SSDS OA, SPQ-9B(TUP), SLQ-32(V)3 and RAM. That would make more sense… T.J.
	LHS November 18th, 2010 at 12:53 pm Your assumption here that President Obama is looking to gut the military is uncanny…Being a close follower of one of the best presidents we ever had, I can’t find anything that says he wants to cut Defense. Lots of righty nut bags out there who love to make things up. Heck I get a hundred phony unsubstantiated emails a week bad mouthing Obama, all full of lies an innuendos. Where is your proof? To date the Obama and Democratic Congress holds the record for the greatest amount of money ever spent on Defense in all of America’s history, exceeding Bush by at least 10%! Oh BTW there are more Repubs out there talking about cutting the Defense than Dems. For the record these past 30 years or so democrats have been more inclined to spend than cut. It’s only recently under Bush where the Repubs reversed their typical colors outspending the Dems.
	Jeff November 18th, 2010 at 1:36 pm THe concept of the LCS was flawed from the get go. THe high speed requirement gutted its range to the point that it is almost unusable except as a local patrol boat. Not to mention that that high speed requirement also forced less than ideal armor protection. For the F-35 to have been good, it should have been an A-35, cause a fighter it is not, and the STOVL version should not have driven the design of all three models.
	Bill R. November 18th, 2010 at 5:07 pm Get your facts straight — what is your basis for calculating FY2010 defense spending to GDP…I see a baseline defense budget of $693 billion dollars, but where are you gettting GDP numbers that justifiy your claim. Hint — that would be a GDP of the four quarters of FY2010 equalling 18.896 Trillian bucks a 25% increase over the previous year. Got any documentation or source material that proves a claim like that ?
	Bill R. November 18th, 2010 at 5:16 pm FWIW, during the Clinton Adminstration, defense spending to GDP went down from 4.4% in 1993 to 3% in 2000. The numbers for the Bush 43 years are 3% (2001), 3.3% (2002), 3.7% (2003), 3.9% (2004), 4% (2005), 3.9% (2006), 3.9% (2007), 4.2% (2008). Of course, if you were working on Crusader, Commanche, or the latter half of FCS, you may not have noticed the big numbers, since your program was either being terminated or reduced once a year, every year to pay for the war, armored HMMWVs, MRAPs, and Stryker strap-on armor.
	Bill R. November 18th, 2010 at 5:19 pm Let me not forget Future Force Warrior, another Bush era army program cut down in its childhood.
	Unibrowser November 18th, 2010 at 6:51 pm OY, another BHO coolaid drinker!
	LHS November 18th, 2010 at 10:19 pm No I just research the truth instead of sucking up the hear what you want to hear lies from Fox News. Check out the past decade of Defense spending and read the numbers out loud for yourself. The CBO has a webste with links on this stuff… So many lies and people who are scared to death that a very intelligent black man could lead this country to further greatness. So used to looking all around the stalls of bumbling idiots and loud mouth bigots which typifies today’s Republican Party… Long time ago the Repubs were descent people. Now very few normal Repubs can be found, most have morphed into a skanky gang of near to be Nazis… We are most certainly doomed!
	pfcem November 20th, 2010 at 3:52 pm You have no clue what you are talking about. The LCS has very good range — it is expected to self-deploy after all (this & the demand for full helo facilities is what has caused them to be >2500 tons rather than <1500 tons). Dash speed has no effect on cruise range… The F-22 is the only fighter better than the F-35. The STOVL version (with the exception of USMC size requirements) DID NOT drive design of all three models.
	irtusk November 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm > Dash speed has no effect on cruise range… except when desire for dash speed drives design compromises namely it kept it small, preventing more fuel storage from someone smarter than you: http://blog.usni.org/2009/09/08/the-need-for-spee… > Milan Vego’s article stresses that the high costs of the initial LCS hulls are a result of the emphasis on speed in the design of both ships; and he also suggests that emphasis directly influences design decisions that impact power requirements, fuel consumption, maintenance, **endurance**, and payload. Everything from the materials used to the specific detail design is influenced by the speed requirement, so if the LCS requirement for speed is reduced, my first question would be how much redesign is even possible? What would the LCS trade speed for?
	Jay Citizen November 21st, 2010 at 1:58 am I don’t want to be pegged as an isolationist, but hey! The truth is the truth. That is what you put out there STemplar — I totally agree. Or as I like to say You Fucking A Tweety! YFAT for short! :D
	Jay Citizen November 21st, 2010 at 2:10 am I hate to point to the F-20, but they never got any reward on that front. So it would take a LOT to get industry to EVER pay their own dime on development. I got to admit though — as far as I could tell, most of the MRAPS designs did come out of Oshkosh on their own!
	Curt November 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 am All design is managing trade-offs. More speed requires different hull designs, bigger engines, more fuel for those engines, different propulsion gear, etc. Just to name a few, a lower top speed (say 25kts) with the same size would result in: 1. Different hull form with better seakeeping and greater mission payload (probably twice the payload) 2. Simple, cheap well understood, old fashion screws and rudders instead of waterjets being driven by cheap, economical diesel engines. 3. Made of cheap, easy to produce, easy to repair steel 4. Greater design margins across the board 5. Significantly improved range, probably on the order of 6000nm at 18kts instead of 4000nm@18kts Alternatively, you could make it smaller with the same capability in other areas.

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

F136 Phony Competition, LCS Good

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments