Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good points by all...but it comes down to this:

Where do you see yourselves operating in 2025-2040?

If you see operations like present day Afghanistan, you'd be stupid to invest in the JSF or similar capability. However, if you see yourself having to operate in the presence of SA-10/20's and J-10/11's with PL-12's, then you're concerned about your survivability (signature) and you need the level of observability the JSF brings to the table regardless of whether the mission system is better than a late lot Super Hornet when you get it. Mission systems you can upgrade...low observability has built into the airframe.

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you see operations like present day Afghanistan, you'd be stupid to invest in the JSF or similar capability. However, if you see yourself having to operate in the presence of SA-10/20's and J-10/11's with PL-12's, then you're concerned about your survivability (signature) and you need the level of observability the JSF brings to the table regardless of whether the mission system is better than a late lot Super Hornet when you get it. Mission systems you can upgrade...low observability has built into the airframe.

Couldn't have said it better.

In any case, if the Congress tried to kill the C model, the current administration would veto the bill. They're already threatening a veto over the second engine and some of the conditions one of the House subcommittees laid out to release full production funding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points by all...but it comes down to this:

Where do you see yourselves operating in 2025-2040?

Spongebob

Hi Spongebob,

Well, I might just see out to 2040 but I'll be an old man sitting on my front verandah reading the latest news on my 17" laptop in a biiiig font (my eyes will probably be pretty well shot by then) about whatever war Australia hopefully isn't involved in. If I had my way Australia wouldn't be involved in Iraq or Afghanistan, just as we wouldn't have been involved in Vietnam. My main reason for saying that is the tactics being employed by the Coalition of the Willing and those used in Vietnam. From what I can make of it, we are still basically using conventional WW2 European tactics against an enemy that we don't know and who can turn up around any bend in the road or streetside market place as a young prgenant woman. Pregnant with an IED belt and a pillow strapped around her waist. She probably has never heard of the Geneva Conventions, let alone have any willingness to obey them. The modern enemy doesn't think conventionally or wear a uniform. We hear in Australia of a coming surge of 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. I'm afraid that won't even be a drop in the ocean if it happens, and would a much larger surge (say, oh, a 3, 4, or 500,000 troop surge be politically acceptable back home?) I know that it wouldn't be here and any Government that tried it would be committing political suicide.

If we were to spend the money on a combination of say 200 Su-30MKAvs (Avstralia) and production PAK-FAs and their associated armaments plus our 24 Super Hornets and a force of say 24 Su-34s, who in this region would want to have a go at us. As has been so eloquently said in the past there is noone around this region who would have enough aircraft, now or in the middle to distant future to take on such an air force, not even China and is the US ever likely to attack us? I don't know what all the answers are, and neither do I think do many others who write in this forum, but I do know there is an increasing number of ordinaery people here who think we could be getting better value for our money, regardless of what the politicians try to tell us. We need a force with which we can defend ourselves hence the name of our forces these days, The Australian Defence Force (ADF). Australia is a small country population wise (the is even a debate going on here about what our optimum population shouild be) and we should stay out of other nations affairs. Since the end of WW2 we've had no real troubles except for Korea and Vietnam, which many of us think were none of our business anyway and we do our utmost to solve problems quietly and diplomatically.

If the unpalatable does happen and we are attacked, what are 100 JSFs going to do? What happened on and for quite a few days after 9/11. Was anything or anyone taken out within the first 24 hours? To me, all this stuff is just theory and when it came to the real crunch it took weeks and months to hunt down those who planned the attacks but didn't participate and were still resident in the USA. It used to be a standing joke that if you wanted to take out the industrial centres of Sydney and Newcastle you attacked RAAF Williamtown and RAAF Amberly simultaneously at 1510 hours on any Friday afternoon and the only people you would kill would be the guards and cooks, but you would take out most of Australia's fighter and bomber force and a lot of our jet trainers as well. Another standing joke on Friday afternoons was "Don't touch your brakes going out the gate, I'll be right up your clacker."

When it comes to the crunch of defending Australia, in my opinoin we need many more aircraft and quite a few more bases all around the coutnry, not having the 2 main bases within 300 nm of each other. All these things cost money and I have never thought it a wise move to put all your eggs in the one basket. WE have one base in the north west. We need more in the south and west to do the job really effectively. I know this is going to happen in my lifetime but at aome stage in the future we'll have to bite the bullet and pay out in infrastrucure what we should have been paying for years.

Cheers,

Ross.

Edited by ross blackford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to news....

P&W: Cost For Next Batch of F-35 Engines 10% Less

By JOHN REED

Published: 26 May 2010 17:00

Pratt & Whitney officials expect to emerge from negotiations with the Pentagon having achieved savings in the double-digit percentage range for the latest batch of 36 F135 engines for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

"We delivered our [low-rate initial production, or LRIP, lot 4 offer] on Sept. 15" to complement "the multiyear, multi-[LRIP] cost-reduction proposal" that was approved by the Pentagon's Joint Estimating Team, David Hess, president of the East Hartford, Conn.-based engine maker, said May 26 during a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington.

In the short term, the plan should yield a cost reduction of more than 10 percent per engine over the $667 million previous purchase of 21 engines, known as LRIP 3, said Warren Boley, president of Pratt & Whitney's military engines division.

Overall, the plan should put the F135 program on track to reduce its costs by up to 40 percent over the engine program's 30-year lifetime, he said.

Pratt's cost-reduction plan outlines "every action, every activity to come down the cost" curve, Hess said. "I have told the [F-35 program office] repeatedly that we should have a five-minute negotiation."

However, negotiations for the 36 engines have been held up by the Pentagon's restructuring and recertification of the F-35 program in the wake of predictions that the program would breach the Nunn-McCurdy statute capping per-unit cost growth in major weapon systems.

"The recertification should be complete June 1, at which time, then, the [F-35 program office] should be able to make forward progress," Hess said.

The company has been expecting the Pentagon's counter offer, he said: "It was going to be a few weeks ago, it was going to be last week, it was going to be this week. We're hopeful that next week we'll get their first reply for our LRIP 4 proposal."

Hess shot back at claims made earlier this week by rival F-35 engine partners General Electric and Rolls-Royce that Pratt's engine has encountered development problems. He said that any delays to the F135 were simply due to Pentagon-mandated changes to the thrust and weight requirements.

A week ago, the U.S. House Armed Services Committee included $485 million for the development of General Electric and Rolls-Royce's F136 alternate engine for the F-35 in its markup of the 2011 defense authorization bill, despite threats from the Pentagon and White House that such a measure would be vetoed.

Two pro-Pratt & Whitney lawmakers, Reps. Earl Blumenthal, D-Ore., and John Larson, D-Conn., are introducing legislation that would kill funding for the alternate engine during the full House floor vote on the issue, expected this week.

The U.S. Senate is also taking up the F-35 engine issue during its markup of the defense authorization bill on May 27.

This next story is particularly interesting if you've heard an F-136 attack ad recently aired...

GE, Rolls: F-35 Engine Foe Waging Disinformation Campaign

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 24 May 2010 15:08

The manufacturers of a second F-35 fighter power plant have offered a window into their intense congressional lobbying effort to ensure the F136 engine is funded in fiscal 2011: Move the media and legislative focus from its program to the F-35's primary engine and its prime contractor, Pratt & Whitney.

The argument the General Electric-Rolls team is making on Capitol Hill is that the so-called "alternate engine" program is performing well and is affordable, while the development effort on Pratt's F135 engine is substantially over budget and likely to go further into the red in coming years, officials from the two companies said in a May 24 morning session with reporters.

Related Topics

David Joyce, GE Aviation's president and CEO, said he "is amazed there is so much information" being dispensed by Pratt & Whitney to cloud what he said were F135 cost overruns of more than $2 billion.

Joyce said Pratt officials have been using "diversionary tactics" to shift the public and private debates about the F-35 engine situation from their own program.

Asked for a response, Pratt & Whitney officials said in a mid-afternoon statement that the F135 engine is "working very well."

"GE continues to cite ongoing cost and technical problems on the F135 that simply do not exist," the statement said. "In reality, it's the performance of the F136 extra engine that the government is concerned about."

James Guyette of Rolls-Royce said Pratt already has spent $7.3 billion to develop its engine, while GE and Rolls have spent "$3 billion plus $1 billion to go" on their model.

Joyce and Guyette spoke to reporters just days after the House Armed Services Committee defied the Pentagon by funding the GE-Rolls engine in its version of fiscal 2011 defense authorization legislation. GE-Rolls officials are fighting an effort to overturn the panel's proposal on the House floor.

They said Pentagon has overspent on the primary power plant and predicted that even more will be needed in additional F135 development work.

They said GE-Rolls' latest plans would bring "$20 billion in savings" to the F-35 engine program.

They also said that people who say that the F136 would create jobs in the United Kingdom, not in the United States, were putting up a "smoke screen."

Another key part of the lobbying message will focus on Pratt as the F-35 fleet's sole engine provider. Joyce and Guyette said this will create an unwise "monopoly," which "would not be in the nation's interest."

The duo acknowledged other U.S. military aviation programs have featured just one engine maker. The difference, they said, is the size, dollar-wise, of the F-35 engine program.

Pratt shot back at that claim, noting it is the lone engine supplier "on numerous military aircraft like the F-18, the Black Hawk helicopter, the Apache helicopter and the A-10, none of which has an extra engine.

"The bottom line is that the Department of Defense does not want or need the extra engine, which will cost at least an additional $2.9B in taxpayers' money and will have an adverse impact on the U.S. industrial base and our troops," according to the Pratt & Whitney statement. "In addition, the DoD does not believe there is any benefit to further competition."

F136 officials also will be lobbying lawmakers and congressional aides about a plan they recently pitched to Pentagon officials that would allow the military to buy the alternative engine under a fixed-price contract.

Guyette said the message will be this: A F-136 fixed-price arrangement "shifts some of the risk to us," while buying only Pratt power plants would cost DoD - and taxpayers - substantially more each year.

GE and Rolls are angling for a head-to-head matchup with the Pratt engine.

"We want an opportunity to compete," Guyette said. GE-Rolls wants the Pentagon to ultimately hold yearly competitions between the two power plants.

The officials also called a recent internal Pentagon analysis that said the F136 engine would cost $2.9 billion more than now projected "overstated."

And in other news...

Flight test continues to slowly rack up sorties. Had the milestone of all three test sites having JSFs in the air on the same day last week, and the hours are building, and the test points are getting ticked off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to news....

P&W: Cost For Next Batch of F-35 Engines 10% Less

By JOHN REED

Published: 26 May 2010 17:00

Pratt & Whitney officials expect to e.....

This next story is particularly interesting if you've heard an F-136 attack ad recently aired...

GE, Rolls: F-35 Engine Foe Waging Disinformation Campaign

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 24 May 2010 15:08

The manufacturers of a second F-35 fighter power plant have offered a window into their intense congressional lobbying effort

Mark,

Will that be asking too much for you to provide a link to the news that you quote? Or at least a name of the publication. Particularly when they used such provocative term "Waging Disinformation Campaign".

We all want to see accurate informations on such an important program as the JSF. We don't want it to go the way of the F-22 or A-12. When the price goes so out of control, the policy maker had no choice but to cut short the program. The forces of US need a 5th generation fighter in the 2025-2040 time frame. The 6th generation program may start soon, but it wont go into EMD until 2025 or beyond.

The Super Hornet entered service in 2001, some of the early airframe will reach the 6000 hours design life limit soon even though the Navy expect them to be able to fly beyond 8000 hours. The war fighters need an affordable 5th generation fighter now. The CBO report offered some good options for filling the fighter gap now that the F-35 is getting delayed. But they are just "stop gap" solution. We need the F-35 to get back on track, but there was no proof that it is yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry! Both were from DefenseNews. The second was a PR piece included for completeness, so it's dubious to begin with. When two competing contractors start fighting publicly, the truth is the first casualty.

When the price goes so out of control, the policy maker had no choice but to cut short the program.
What cut?

Here's the full text of RADM Manazir's interview on Navy strike needs:

Navy Needs F-35’s Capabilities, Admiral Says

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 25, 2010 – The Navy needs the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter’s fifth-generation capabilities, the service’s acting director of air warfare said yesterday.

Navy Rear Adm. Michael C. Manazir spoke to reporters because he wanted to “completely dispel the rumor that the Navy is soft on F-35C.”

The F-35C is the aircraft-carrier version of the joint strike fighter. The F-35A model is for the Air Force, and the F-35B will be a vertical take-off and landing model for the Marines.

The FA-18E and FA-18F Super Hornets are great airplanes, Manazir said, but they do not have the capabilities that the F-35C’s will bring to the Navy. Delays in the joint strike fighter program and the cost increases associated with them caused some supposition that the Navy would turn to the FA-18s, he added.

The Navy has had the F-35C on its horizon for more than a decade, the admiral said. In that time, the FA-18’s capabilities have grown, with the latest aircraft – the E, F and G models – reaching the fourth-generation airframe’s limits. “We need to move into the F-35C to realize our vision of tactical air coming off of carriers,” he said.

The joint strike fighter brings stealth capabilities, advanced sensor and data fusion, and a systems approach to warfighting, Manazir said. “We’re completely committed to the F-35C,” he added, noting that staying with the Super Hornet would put the United States at a disadvantage against a near-peer competitor.

Still, the admiral said, the Super Hornet program is not ending, just yet. The Navy wants to buy 124 of the aircraft through fiscal 2013 to bring its number of Super Hornets to 515. Beginning in fiscal 2016, he said, aircraft carriers will deploy with a mix of Super Hornets and F-35C’s. The Navy needs 44 strike fighters per flight deck, he added.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered a restructuring of the joint strike fighter program last year. That effort allowed the Navy to move an additional aircraft into flight tests, and to buy a software line “that gives us additional integration capability and added risk reduction in software, which is always the toughest thing to do in a new program,” Manazir said. Operational testing will move to April 2016, and this will fulfill all prerequisites for initial operational capability, he told reporters.

The first deployment of the new aircraft will be December 2016, with the second deployment in February 2017.

The Navy faces a shortfall of fighter aircraft, the admiral noted. “Without mitigations, … [the shortfall] is about 177 total Department of the Navy airplanes,” he said. “That peaks in 2017.”

Mitigation efforts bring that number down to about 100, he said. That could drop further, he added, if the demands on the fleet lessen – a conclusion the admiral said he is not going to make, given the uncertain times. “We are focused on addressing that shortfall,” he said.

The Navy does not have a shortfall in strike aircraft today, Manazir said, but the expected wear-out date for its inventory begins in fiscal 2012.

The 1,180 strike aircraft now in the Navy’s inventory fall within the scope of the service’s maintenance capabilities, while providing the planes needed for a rotational force, the admiral said.

Edited by MarkW
Link to post
Share on other sites
When the price goes so out of control, the policy maker had no choice but to cut short the program.
what cut?

The A-12 was cancelled. The F-22 stopped after 187 airplanes. Both because the program cost soared. The contractor will be wrong if they believe that their program is "too big to fail". US contractor should not hope for a A400M style bailout by the government.

It was reported that Major General David Heinz was fired despite trying to do the right thing for JSF. He inherited a mess when he took over, but just did not finish his job fast enough. See this piece in the Defense News by Scott Reynolds.

Why does this happen? Because DoD's senior leadership underfunds programs from the beginning to win congressional approval. DoD accurately reflects that these programs have high-risk budgets, but that is rarely emphasized in their message. Outside auditors routinely condemn this practice.

Unfortunately, this behavior has become standard practice. The secretary's firing of Heinz may be an attempt to jolt that cultural norm from existence, but, in this case, the administration has effectively shot the messenger, and sacrificed a program manager who was actually trying to do the right thing - telling the truth.

Here's the full text of RADM Manazir's interview on Navy strike needs:

Navy Needs F-35’s Capabilities, Admiral Says

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 25, 2010 – The Navy needs the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter's fifth-generation capabilities, the service's acting director of air warfare said yesterday.

Navy Rear Adm. Michael C. Manazir spoke to reporters because he wanted to completely dispel the rumor that the Navy is soft on F-35C.â€

Thank you for the link. A very information piece of news. I hope that our military leadership and adminstration will work out the right formula to meet the defense need at affordable price.

Edited by Kei Lau
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ross,

All good points and to be honest I couldn't care less what Australia does (no offense). For that matter I think we here in the states have taken the wrong tack on many things (however, I think our approach in Africa in the last several years has been spot-on and well executed). However, I know it sucks holding only a knife when the gun fight shows up at your front door (remember, almost all of YOUR natural mineral resources (and other things) go to China...).

Cheers

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bases aim for new combat jets, some fear jet noise

BY: John Miller , The Associated Press

05/30/2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...-QqoJQD9G16V5G0

BOISE, Idaho — The new F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter is tardy, billions over budget and the roar of its jet engine could eclipse the older planes it's due to replace.

Despite these concerns, U.S. Air Force officials at 11 bases in 7 states — and civilian leaders of communities that surround these military installations — are scrambling to convince Pentagon brass to choose their facility to house the latest air-combat bling.

For bases, success during a first round of selections in 2011 could mean survival in a post-Cold War era of downsizing. For military communities, it means a much-needed economic shot-in-the-arm.

In Idaho, where officials predict a $1 billion boost from up to 3,000 personnel and 144 planes, even the state-sponsored lottery is in act: Its website urges gamers to join the effort to lure F-35s to Gowen Field Air National Guard Base in Boise and Mountain Home Air Force Base, 50 miles to the east.

"We feel strongly that it would be foolish to not support this, with the state of the economy," said Adam Park, a spokesman for Boise Mayor Dave Bieter.

Meanwhile, Tim Amalong, a general aviation business manager at the Tucson International Airport in Arizona, is talking up the local Air Guard station's attributes — and trash-talking rivals. Four-season weather above the Sonoran Desert's 1.9-million-acre Barry Goldwater Training Range makes for better flying than colder airspace in Utah or Idaho, Amalong insists.

"I've been up there sometimes during the winter and it ain't pretty," he said.

So far, Lockheed Martin Corp. has built just a few of roughly 2,400 F-35s the United States has said it wants to buy, but the plane's cost already has more than doubled to some $113 million apiece.

What's more, the joint strike fighter — "joint" because different versions are also being built for the U.S. Marines and Navy — isn't likely to be ready for Air Force operations until 2015, two years behind schedule.

Air Force officials responsible for the F-35 didn't return repeated phone calls.

Five sites are training-mission candidates, where American and foreign pilots from U.S. allies that buy the planes would come to learn their way around the cockpits: Gowen Field; Tucson; Luke Air Force Base, also in Arizona; Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, and Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.

Operational squadrons are slated for another six bases: Mountain Home; Burlington International Airport Guard Station in Vermont; Hill Air Force Base in Utah; Jacksonville Air Guard Station in Florida; and Shaw Air Force Base and McEntire Air Guard Base, both in South Carolina.

All aim to fill possible holes in their aging combat arsenals.

Arizona's Luke Air Force Base began slashing 550 military jobs and 28 aging F-16 jets last year. Eglin lost its F-16s.

In Idaho, Mountain Home Air Force Base's 20 F-15C Eagles are departing this summer, while C-130 cargo planes that exited Gowen Field last year left vacant hangars. The base's 22 A-10 "Warthog" tankbusters are 34 years old and counting.

"In order to maintain our relevancy, eventually we're going to need a new mission," said Col. Tim Marsano, of the Idaho Air National Guard.

Air Guard F-16 pilots from Vermont were among the first to be scrambled over New York City's "Ground Zero" after the Sept. 11 attacks, but Burlington's 18-plane squadron is aging.

"In a perfect world, there would be a one-for-one replacement with the F-35s, and these F-16s would retire," said Brigadier General Steve Cray, of the Vermont Air National Guard's Green Mountain Boys.

Even so, the roar of the F-35's proposed Pratt & Whitney engine — dubbed by backers as "the sound of freedom" — has some homeowners who live near bases talking about plunging property values and plummeting quality of life. The Air Force's own estimates, from a 2008 environmental analysis, show the jets may be twice as loud at takeoff, and four times as loud on landing, as an F-15C Eagle.

Valparaiso, Fla., which borders Eglin, sued the Air Force, settling in March only after military officials agreed to consider changes. But Mayor John B. Arnold isn't sure it's over; the city may go back to court. He's not against the F-35, he said, but just raising noise concerns has won him enemies in neighboring towns.

"We still have people that won't talk to us," Arnold said.

El Mirage, Ariz., officials feel Arnold's pain. They commissioned a study that found property values could drop by a fifth, should the jets come to Luke. Now, the Phoenix suburb has come under pressure from gung-ho military communities nearby.

"On the worst day, we've been called unpatriotic," El Mirage spokeswoman Stacy Pearson said.

Monty Mericle has lived near Gowen Field in Boise for 35 years and helped start the "Save Our Valley Now" group after becoming convinced F-35 noise would surpass even the din of the F-4 Phantom, a noisy fighter-bomber retired in the mid-1990s.

If Boise wants the F-35 so bad, Mericle suggests it or the Air Force should buy his house.

"These planes are a battlefield weapon," Mericle said. "They need to put them into a remote location."

Air Force officials cite an April 2009 Lockheed Martin study showing F-35s aren't much louder than existing jets. Strategic timings of takeoffs and landings could further remedy complaints, they said.

Brigadier General William Shawver, Idaho's assistant adjutant general, said his own house is located off the tip of Gowen Field's runway. Critics should wait for a preliminary environmental impact study, due this summer, before passing judgment, he said.

"We have a long history of after-burning aircraft in the pattern," Shawver said.

Online:

For a U.S. military website on the F-35 http://www.jsf.mil/

For a website opposing the F-35 in Idaho http://saveourvalleynow.org/

For a website promoting the F-35 in Idaho http://idahof35.com/

For a website opposing the F-35 in Arizona http://f35arizona.org/

For a website promoting the F-35 in Arizona http://tucsonf35.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we'll never have a truly stealth jet until they can fly as silently as a bird ... :whistle:

Maybe we should be developing sonic missiles now too, they track targets by the noise ...

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a more complete version of the "new" cost estimate:

Pentagon: Total F-35 Price Tag Could Reach $382 Billion

By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 1 Jun 2010 20:13

Senior Pentagon officials on June 1 announced the F-35 fighter and five other major weapon systems have surpassed a legal cost threshold, while also criticizing the review process that triggers the "Nunn-McCurdy breaches."

The Defense Department told lawmakers the F-35 fighter program could cost as much as $382.4 billion, with each Lightning II model coming with a $92.4 million price tag, according to DoD budget documents.

Those cost estimates assume the program continues down the current path, which officials told reporters they are working to avoid. One senior Pentagon official – who declined to point to a specific cost target - said efforts already are under way to move the overall cost of the F-35 program "as close as possible" back toward substantially smaller estimates crafted in 2002.

The Defense Department sent the new estimates to Congress after determining the program had breached the so-called Nunn-McCurdy statute, which requires the Pentagon to notify Congress when major defense programs experience substantial cost growth.

The $92.4 million per-model estimate is what defense officials refer to as a "cradle-to-grave" projection, meaning spanning each fighter jet's entire life, the senior official said.

The Pentagon restructured the F-35 program just several months ago after internal DoD cost estimates showed the tri-service, international fighter initiative's price tag had grown more than expected – and more than the joint program office claimed. This formal congressional notification, the senior official said, is merely a reflection of the same growth – "the paperwork has caught up to that."

Why the bigger price tag? There are several primary drivers. One is the Navy several years ago reduced the number of F-35s it will buy. A second is a more difficult development process, which required additional years – and thus, became more expensive. The senior official said the program "will continue to struggle" with keeping the development phase on track, in part because the technology on the short take-off and landing variant is so complicated.

A DoD summary of the F-35 breach calls higher than projected "contractor labor and overhead rates and fees" the "single largest contributor to cost growth."

The senior official said the new F-35 program management has been ordered to pare these costs because "I do not think that the department should have to incur those costs."

As for the projected $382.4 billion overall price of the program, the senior official said the hope is "the taxpayers never have to pay that bill."

Meanwhile, a senior Lockheed official said the company was very pleased with the results of the recent restructuring and reiterated the company's stance that it does not expect the program to cost anywhere near the Pentagon's $382 billion estimate.

"I cannot foresee any scenario where those numbers become a reality," the official said.

Instead, the official said he expects the next batch of 32 production jets, known as "low-rate initial production lot 4," to cost more than 20 percent less than that projection. The previous batch of production aircraft also cost about 20 percent below the Pentagon's per-jet projections.

Lockheed officials have said previous Pentagon F-35 estimates have relied too heavily on data from older fighter programs, such as the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18EF Super Hornet.

Also breaching the cost growth threshold was the Navy's truncated DDG 1000 destroyer program. Costs grew from $20 billion to just over $22 billion, DoD said. The senior official pegged this growth to the Navy opting to buy three instead of 10, which drives up unit costs.

As part of the Nunn-McCurdy process, DoD officials have ordered the destroyer program to strike the "Volume Searching Radar hardware from the ship baseline design … in order to reduce cost for the program," according to a department fact sheet. The Navy has been ordered to shift the program's initial operating capability date back one year, to 2016, and alter testing and evaluation requirements.

The Air Force-led Wideband Gapfiller satellite program also experienced a breach, the result of a break in production (between satellites 6 and 7), and the subsequent production re-start costs when the service opted to build two additional WGS orbiters (satellites 7 and 8). The cost grew from around $3 billion to just over $3.5 billion. The officials said Pentagon officials are mulling future satellite communications needs, leaving open the door to buying additional WGS satellites.

The Army's Apache Block III program also made the list of over-budget programs. The initial intent was to overhaul 634 existing helicopters, but 56 "new build" birds were tacked on to meet war demands. The revamped helos saw cost growth of $9.9 billion to $12 billion; the new aircraft costs went from $2 billion in 2006 to $2.3 billion. The department has split the "AB3" program into two parts – one focused on the new helicopters and another for the upgrades ones – which has resulted in "a more conservative set of estimating assumptions." Both are slated for a milestone C review this summer.

Another Army program made the list: the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile Warning System, designed to take out infrared homing surface-to-air missile attacks on helicopters. The ATIC effort's costs grew from $900 million in 2003 to $1 billion; the CMWs portion's estimated price swelled from $3.1 billion in 2003 to $3.5 billion. The causes were "technological immaturity and unrealistic performance expectations," according to a DoD fact sheet.

Further, the Navy's Remote Minehunting System breached the cost growth threshold primarily because of "the result of lower than planned procurement quantities, unrealistic estimating, and failure to adequately address reliability issues," according to DoD. Costs grew from $1.2 billion in 2006 to $1.4 billion.

Each of the six programs avoided termination because Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter deemed each essential to U.S. national security, which is required by the Nunn-McCurdy statute.

But is the Nunn-McCurdy process worth it? The senior official said the Pentagon is working on cost estimates of how much the Pentagon puts into the Nunn-McCurdy process. Some DoD brass wonder "whether the Nunn-McCurdy process is in Nunn-McCurdy," the senior official quipped.

Another DoD official said that estimation should be completed in several weeks.

The senior official said Pentagon leaders want to use the new Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analysis (PARCA) office to perform a similar function. PARCA has established by 2009 defense acquisition reform legislation, but Congress allowed the Pentagon to craft its charter.

In December, Carter signed a memo outlining how PARCA would work.

Its members would spring into action upon request by the defense secretary, DoD acquisition chief, a service secretary or a DoD agency director, according to the Dec. 9 memorandum.

The group would perform one of two kinds of analyses on major acquisition programs: * A performance assessment, which would "evaluate the cost, schedule, and performance of the program, relative to current metrics, performance requirements, and baseline parameters," the memo said. "The assessments shall determine the extent to which the level of program cost, schedule, and performance relative to established metrics is likely to result in the timely delivery of a level of capability to the war fighter."

* A root-cause analysis, which would examine the "underlying causes for shortcomings in cost, schedule and performance." It would also determine whether program shortcomings were due in part to "unrealistic performance expectations; unrealistic cost and schedule plans; immature technologies; and excessive manufacturing or integration risk," the memo said.

Both kinds of analyses would look at whether problems were caused by "unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or integration issues arising during program performance; changes in procurement quantities; inadequate program funding or funding instability; [or] poor performance by government or contractor personnel responsible for program management," the memo said.

One defense analyst said the re-certification of the F-35 program was a done deal, showing the Nunn McCurdy process might not be working.

"Certification of F-35 is no big surprise because three of the defense department's four military services are counting on getting it, and there is no evidence of major design or engineering problems," Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute wrote in a June 1 blog post. "But doesn't it make you wonder what the point of these costly reviews are, when even programs the department has targeted for termination are certified as complying with Nunn-McCurdy criteria for continuance?"  John Reed and Kate Brannen contributed to this report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a nice article by Graham Warwick in the Ares blog on the Aviation Week website that sorts out a lot of the information (and mis-information) on the engines (F135 & F136) for the F-35. Worth a read. Also a photo of the F-35C (first aircraft) doing a taxi test.

- Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the first time I've seen the 12 AMRAAM plus 2 AIM-9X load suggested before. Unlike the Superbug picture you see with a gazillion AMRAAMs, the JSF has enough internal fuel carriage to make that 14 AAM load really interesting. Not sure what the added drag count will do to range/speed, but it could be a viable load.

Also interesting the see some of the internal fuel numbers published.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that the Super Hornet is everything you want: on time, on budget, and on target.

But its also based on tech that is 20-30 years old too.

Its a good aircraft, but do you really want to be using 1980-90s tech aircraft in 2020...thats like operating an updated P-51 in 1960-70's

Link to post
Share on other sites
But its also based on tech that is 20-30 years old too.

Its a good aircraft, but do you really want to be using 1980-90s tech aircraft in 2020...thats like operating an updated P-51 in 1960-70's

So by that logic, the F-35 tech will be already 15 years old in 2020 ...

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Math in public errors aside, I'm almost positive the JSf wasn't completed in 2005!

The P-51 analogy is closer than you think. You can no more make a P-51 fly supersonic (OK, you can do it--once, briefly) due to its shape limitations than you can make any 4th gen AC competitive with a 5th gen. It's a fundamental of not only shape, but system architecture. Conceivably, you could gut and redesign all the electronics on the Hornet to deliver the performance we're already seeing on integrated systems, but the cost would be insane. And even if you could get superior performance under the skin, you're still stuck with a platform OML that will never, ever be stealthy in any band.

And FWIW, getting back to the news, the Block 4 JSF capabilities will be less than 2 years old in 2020; Block 3 will be ~6 years old, so it won't be that ancient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's if the schedule holds water ...

How come in your argument, an advanced version of the F-35 is only ___yrs old yet the Block II Rhinos are 1980s tech ?

Until the F-35 'tech' is combat proven, it's vaporware ... F-35 has only proven to bloat a budget ... and still has no gun in the airframe of the F-35B/C versions ... Yeah, that has proven unimportant in a modern strike aircraft ... :rolleyes:

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...