A Little DAB for LockMar; JAGM Scores Hit

A Little DAB for LockMar; JAGM Scores Hit

Today is F-35 Defense Acquisition Board day. Some will bill this as a make-or-break event for Lockheed Martin but we suspect much of the bad news has already leaked out. Today could be the precursor for what could be a much worse day in the future when Defense Secretary Robert Gates takes the data from today’s DAB meeting and decides what to do with it in the 2012 budget.

Just how much turmoil is there in the world’s biggest defense program, not to mention the single most important program to the world’s biggest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin? The Technical Baseline Review, which formed the basis for today’s DAB meeting, found that JSF will need up to $5 billion more than currently budgeted and faces significant schedule delays. In schedule terms,  the A and C models face another 12-month delay. The F-35B was expected to slip as much as three years.

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell has made it clear that Gates will be looking at the new data in terms of 2012. Take all that data and add to them the rumors that those close to Gates are considering termination of the F-35B, the plane beloved of the Marine Corps. The Marines have already advanced to contact and, according to Loren Thompson, have beaten back any plans to kill the plane. The Marines were left in a pickle when Britain made the decision to drop its buy of the STOVL aircraft and buy F-35cs for its next-generation aircraft carriers. But with the recent flurry of deficit reduction plans and increasing pressure from the Tea Party and


Amidst all the gloom for Lockheed, the company offered a glimmer of hope today when it announced its previously unprepossessing entry for the $5 billion Joint Air to Ground Missile competition had scored a hit. The success occurred during a company-funded test (as allowed by the Pentagon for this competition) at White Sands Missile Range.

Here’s what the company said in a release:

“The test also demonstrated the ability of the millimeter wave (MMW) radar sensor to simultaneously track a nearby moving tank, as well as the ability of the two sensors to discriminate targets and to hit the target of choice. Other test objectives included characterization of the launch shock environment, free-flight environment characterization and verification of design maturity, including demonstrating the success of corrective actions following minor anomalies in earlier tests.”

Until now, Lockheed had fared poorly in comparison with Raytheon and Boeing’s JAGM entry. During government-funded tests, the Raytheon missile scored three for three. Lockheed, determined to catch up to Raytheon and to prove to the Pentagon that its more complex IR seeker is worth the extra weight and cost because of its greater sensitivity, said this in its release:.“The test also verified the success of corrective actions we implemented to resolve anomalies from two earlier flight tests,” Frank St. John, Lockheed’s VP for Tactical Missiles, said​.As the company statement diplomatically put it, “coupled with an August 2 target hit at 16 kilometers in a contract-funded test of the semi-active laser (SAL) seeker, this latest shot completed the process of demonstrating the performance of Lockheed Martin’s tri-mode seeker.”

“Flawless sensor correlation in the cooled tri-mode seeker is what allows JAGM to fill the eight identified capability gaps,” said St. John. “We demonstrated this in earlier contract-funded tests in which the cooled tri-mode seeker penetrated battlefield obscurants and defeated all threat countermeasures.  As in all our tests, we used a tactical configuration, thereby significantly reducing risk going into EMD.”

Critically, “the three modes of the seeker did communicate back and forth. All three sensors were collecting data simulateonously,” St. JOhn told me in a press call this morning. He said the company may do another flight after the first of the year on a moving target. He also said release of the final RFP for the next phase of the program “is imminent” and should be out before the end of the year.

Join the Conversation

I wonder IF the F-35B is canceled, what will the Marine replace it with? The loss of this program will do alot towards invalidating the marines on the modern battlefield. VTOL jets are unique set of capabilities that offer the marines the ability to fight a distributed war they way they picture it. While there is a camp that believes in replacing F-35Bs with F-35C’s that ignores the reality of the situation that despite overlap in abilities there would be differences in how they are used that would result in the marines also having to purchase other types of aircrafts to compensate for the lack of support on demand the more closely stationed F-35B’s would afford. That you might end up having to replace F-35Bs with F-35Cs and more Cobras or something else. VTOL is necessary to the marine’s mission as they envision, and maybe its not “right,” or cost effective but anything else narrow’s their long term viability as a distinctive force. Maybe they can live without it, or maybe they’ll cease to be viable as anything more than a boarding party… or maybe they can buy the UK’s harriers at a discount, I hear they aren’t planning on using them.

Good Morning Folks,

Hi Jeff. Your question about what will replace the AV-8 for the Marines is a good one. The unspoken issue here is that since the 2003 invasion of Iraq the marines have little used the AV-8 in combat. Watching the Daily Air Power Summaries that up to last Spring were issued daily, show very little use of the AV-8 or the MV-22 in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

It would appear that the principle use of the VTOL’s for the USMC is to decorate the decks of LHD’s and LHA’s. Both aircraft are maintenance hogs and both have troubles operating in desert conditions.

With nearly $3.5 billion (Contract # N000-19–09-0010) being dumped into the F-35 program as an early Christmas last Friday not much is going to happen to the program. Some grandstanding and speeches of the self-righteous indignation for the media. The real outrage won’t come till the new Congress come in and asked why this couldn’t wait until the new Congress could look into the F-35 program.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

There is very little use of any fixed-wing aircraft in either theater today, mostly due to the restrictive ROE. I don’t think that’s a valid point of comparison. AV-8s were a big part of the air campaign during the first Gulf War.

Canceling the stovl JSF would be a Godsend to the Corps in that we could finally drive out the vstol/stovl cabal in Marine Air that has ruled since the late eighties. They are bankrupting and destroying Marine Air. Getting out of the stovl realm and using cheaper “normal” aircraft operating from expeditionary airfields (EAFs) built onsite should be our future. As to the amphibs, they normally only four to six Harriers anyway, which is a token force — useless against an enemy air presence, redundant with the gunships when there is no air threat. Getting Harriers and any future stovl JSF off the amphibs frees up space for additional lifters and gunships which provide the MEU with far more actual capability than four harriers ever have.

What is not spoken here is the Navy’s traditional role for USMC CAS. The Marines didn’t have their own fixed wing CAS before the early 1980’s. They depended on the Navy, even with Marine Corps pilots. What’s wrong with that? Why not make the Air Force and Navy do their jobs! Navy supported amphibious assaults and some inland penetration. Navy and Air Force supporting depp inland penetration. Otherwise, if you really believe the Marines should hav etheir own CAS (because they can’t depend on their sister services), they we should cut those sister services to fund Marine CAS. And using Expeditionary Airfields (with Marine piloted F-35C’s) can be a good part of that mix.

The Marines have been providing CAS to fellow Marines since WW II.

You just showed how much you know about Marine Corps histroy. You need to go back and look at who provided CAS for Marines during WWII or during Korea, like at the Chosen res. I think its the national security act of 1947 that stated the purpose of Marine Corps avation was to support Marines on the ground and then support any theater wide requriements.

I’m a Marine F/A-18 pilot and take particular offense to your comment. We pioneered the use of CAS aircraft during the Banana Wars in the 1920s and 1930s. We’ve arguably been the subject matter experts ever since. Read a book Mr. Taxpayer.

Close Air Support is at the bottom of the priority list for both the Air Force and Navy. That sounds callous, and doesn’t give them an out for Afghanistan, but it’s ultimately the truth. Against any symmetric foe, I would hope that the Air Force is securing air superiority and engaging strategic targets, and the Navy securing Sea Basing and denying freedom of seas.

To give the Air Force and Navy a little advocacy, it’s mostly an ROE / affordability issue. Both branches should really have a few wings of dirt-cheap, low-threat environment aircraft for COIN in low-intensity warfare, and exploitation during air dominant symmetric wars.

You are getting off topic. The issue is not when the marine aviation developed CAS, its a cost/benefit analysis of the AV8 and what the function of that niche is. Can the AV8 stand on its own in support of marine operations? Can the support provided by AV8s be replicated by other marine aircraft such as the F/A-18 or F-35C? I have my doubts. I think it would cost far less to be rid of the Harrier and not have the capability of VTOL/STOL in the inventory. The money saved could be used on.. I don’t no…COIN aircraft that operate out of unimproved strips. sounds like a plan to me, now execute!
Also, I take particular offense to you comment on taxpayers. You yourself are a taxpayer. Try to grow a little thicker skin when it comes to ignorance on a neighbors part okay?, Mr. Marine Corps F/A-18 superrockstarfighterpilotmegaace! I doubt charles meant anything by it and i really doubt he meant for you to be “particularly offended” by it. No offense charles or Brian. HAHA!

replace charles with taxpayer.

I guess the 20.6 billion dollar question is can a fully loaded Super Tucano operate from a LHA or LHD? Will Brian and the rest of the Fighter mafia resign their commisions when faced with flying a aircraft with a propeller? Cus a Tucano, A-1E or OV-10 Bronco are what Army and Marine commanders and grunts have been screaming for for 40+ years. Answers to these and other pressing questions(where has the money gone? what color should the new tankers be in 2040 when we get them?) will be made known on the next episode of “As the JSF Turns”

Dont break your arm patting yourself on the back. Multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught me that Marine CAS is no better than USAF/USN. French, Dutch and British Pilots routinely hit targets that Americans(of all branches) said were too dangerous. And the subject matter experts on CAS all flew in the Luftwaffe during the Blitzkriegs. Marines, Korea, Corsairs close but atleast second. Hell a F-4U Corsair or A-7 Corsair would do better than Plastic bug drivers who can spend 30–120 seconds over a target.

The F35 is an awesome weapon by far. Unfortunately we are in an economic “perfect storm” — at least outside D.C.. Combine that with the fact that JSF has been laid to the hands of the same “gaggle” that successfully executed F22 to a similar financial demise. Lockheed Martin. The ineptitude and financial fleecing is so-in-your-face and deliberate it cannot be of any surprise. As pointed out in past GAO reports that left unchecked by pentagon oversight the cost are skyrocketing. Combined with the “too big to fail” arrogance of the cowtown good ‘ole boys…well, is it really any surprise? It is time to reassess the contractor of choice and revamp the program with leadership. I say Northrop Grumman and/or Boeing Defense both well versed in the technology and fighter industry are far better suited than the gang Bob Stevens has in FTW whom “he thinks” is doing a good job. Bob’s not dumb. Just a good raider. Time to watch our tax dollars.

Fighterguy, you make a real BIG argument for “competition”. Development programs as big as the F35 should have had Boeing and/or Northrup Grumman all competing against the same SPEC and the winner is chosen after they complete flight test. Also, the contractors should be putting forth greater amounts of their own dollars during development so it can be made more affordable for the USG and the taxpayer. Additionally, fixed pricing should be included in all LRIP contracts and language should be written to protect both the USG and the Contractor. Both Lockheed and Boeing use their own development dollars for commercial programs that can yield Billions in sales……why not have a similar business model for the Military Programs?. Acquisition reform for the USG should have started back with the B2 Program. It does not pay to compete everything under the sun, but it sure makes sense for Programs that can generate 100’s of Billions of dollars in sales.

But, Girls — the $3.5 Bn does not include the costs of the original advanced acquisition LRIP 4 contract or all the contract mofications up until this latest.

All up, my classroom of kids reckon this adds up to well over $5Bn, so far.

Then there is the matter of this contract with LM not covering the costs for the engines, ancillaries and all those other GFE contracts for producing the LRIP 4 deliverables.

Then there are the points concerning the ‘incentive fees’ and the ‘risk share’ which, again, my classroom of kids reckon will see the published costs balloon by the 20% incentive fee to a true cost liability on the government (and, as such, we tax payers) of contract “target price” multiplied by 1.2 (at the very least).

Go figure!!!

I’d like to apologize to anyone offended by my inaccurate history of Marine Corps CAS. I appreciate the history lesson.

But getting to the heart of my argument, why is a separate F-35B necessary given that Navy (with Marine Corps pilots) and Air Force should support this role? I keep asking for such justification in light of what I consider an “excess” of Navy and Air Force aircraft in relation to a nearly non-existent air superiority threat role. We seemed to have choosen a very costly CAS solution.

To consider taking any of the defense projects off the table is to leave gaps in the network; we all know what doing with what you’ve got and suck it up does, we don’t fight wars with sticks and stones anymore Gates.
The Marines are in need of an aircraft they can count on; we must upgrade, we currently are working with planes built before many of us were born. Time takes its tole on even good, even outstanding aircraft, metall fatigue that makes maintenance exceeds the value of the aircrafts. The law states they are to be turned in to DRMO or an Arizona grave yard; by law they are to be done away with. Mr. Gates needs to look closer to home for the cuts; the Republicans helped take out the trash just lately; there is at least one more needing to go; we’ll save Trillions with that correction alone.

The F-35 in any configuration is an overbudgeted eye sore. I don’t see the F-35 in close air support of the Marines. At least the A-10 brought it to the battlefield. Even attack helicopters.

After 4 years in Afghanistan, I can assure you that Marine CAS is not any better than USAF/USN. AC-130s, B-1B “the bone”, A-10s and Apaches make it happen in the Stans. None of those are VTOL or STOVL or work on a LHA. Which is why the USMC is trying to fund their own armed C-130s. British, Dutch and French pilots routinely take out targets deemed too dangerous by US(all branches), despite their very limited ROE. Most of the guys that“wrote the book” on CAS flew Falcons in the Spanish Civil war, then Stukas in the Blitzkieg. It did not happen in the Banana wars(How many bananas did we get out of those?)

@Robert Fritts — You are most decidedly wrong about CAS in the Spanish Civil war — the Germans and other Euro forces were developing and practicing BAI, not CAS — CAS is a coordinated air-ground attack that requires communication between the ground forces and the pilot, with the ground forces targeting the aircraft’s ordnance. BAI goes where the pilot thinks it should go — CAS goes where the ground forces say. CAS was developed and perfected by the USMC.

Fighter mafia, lightweight fighter mafia, Hornet mafia, and now STOVL mafia, I think I’ve heard it all.

Are you in danger of becoming “Oblat”‘s ideological road companion? The things life doesn’t teach us…

Nice.

Seems a few of the commenters do not know aerospace history nor contracting lore. Boeing lost in the X-32 vs X-35 contest. Boeing’s design was the last contribution from McD. It was fatally flawed because it needed direct lift from the engine. The prototype actually flown was not the design they were going to propose to build. Thus it was a contest involving a paper airplane vs a supersonic flying, vertically landing, air refueling model from LM.
Northrup lost the X-23 vs X-22 fighter contest. Their design involved intricate layups of carbon fiber similar to the B-2, a very expensive process. The exhaust design did not provide the variable ducting which allows the F-22 to maintain high angles of attack in steady flight. The list goes on.
The true reality today is that all military builders work with each other — Boeing works with LM on F-22, Northrup is a partner on F-35.

Right on.

Hey Jeff, what planes does the Army have? By your logic, maybe the Army is invalid?

I left Iraq in late 2008 and the Marines used the Osprey daily.

Propellor planes are worthless in todays environment. As good as the A1-E was, they’d be too easily taken out by shoulder fired IR seeking missiles due to their exhaust.

*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