F-35 news roundup

[Vpanoptes]

I've been following this thread with interest. Not because I have any stake in the F-35, but I'm simply a concerned taxpayer. I see funds being spent on a program that isn't meeting the timeline.

The best way to explain is if you look over in the Bad Seller forums. You've got a bunch of people who paid for something and it wasn't delivered in the timeline outlined by the seller. In this case, this is the same as L-M. They won a contract for X amount of jets, at X amount of money, at X amount of time. So far, they've not met their end of the contract. That is what people want to know about. When are they going to deliver?

-JS

Have to agree, but there's a lot more to it than that. I made the analogy in an earlier thread that this is like going to your LHS, putting down a $50 deposit on the latest hi-tech Hasejimiya kit, coming back on the promised delivery date and being told it is delayed 2 months, and that'll be another $25, coming back 2 months later and being told there will be more delays and you owe another $15, etc. It wouldn't take long before you would ask for a refund in that situation, but in this case that isn't an option is it? All the same lame excuses about historic cost over-runs aside, when does the American taxpayer scream ENOUGH? Apparently not yet.....

Edited June 15, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[GreyGhost]

Well put Jeff ...

Instead of a refund, penalties have to be instituted such as _____ date isn't met, the USMC gets one F-35B at no cost, Next date not met, USAF gets one F-35A at no cost and so on ... I bet Lock-Mart would pick up their pace then ...

Gregg

[MarkW]

Both of those analogies kind of fall apart here though. This isn't buying a known, in the box item from a seller at a set price. Not even remotely close. Nor is the hobby store example accurate either. It would be closer to asking Hasemiya to create a new tool kit of enormously complicated design, necessitating them to invent injection molding, different colors styrene on the same sprue, and undercuts from a steel mold. Even then that wouldn't quite do it, because halfway through the tooling design you'd need to change specs! Do you think Hasemiya would agree to a simple flat rate when the effort involves significant invention and unknown quantities? Especially if Hasemiya knew they were taking so much risk given how bonehead their PMs are? ^_^

Nope, this was a cost plus development effort because we asked for something that hadn't been done before. Just on June 11th I posted the first STOVL supersonic flight, yet no comment. Apparently that level of achievement qualifies as "big whoop"? Well, it actually is a pretty big deal.

Bad analogies aside, there are some pretty powerful measures being taken to keep LM on track. They ain't earning a dime of profit until they turn around the program. Short of a Soviet style corporate takeover, that's about as ugly as it get in this free country.

Edited June 15, 2010 by MarkW

[GreyGhost]

Lock-Mart signed the contract ...

If you can't meet it, you lose it ... Ask GD in regards to the A-12 ...

Gregg

[MarkW]

...which is what happened. Gates suspended the old SDD contract unilaterally and is now shoving a very simple pass/fail contract on LM. No more 99% award fee for 10% performance.

That bit of news apparently got lost in all the focus on rebaselining the contract to the over run numbers. And while I would love to see DoD go back and CRUCIFY some of the past govt PMs who skated through the program and hid the slips and cost growth, that won't happen.

Seriously though, A-12? Isn't that a bit dramatic? The original Dorito never made it past a mockup. Why not throw in standoff jammer, which also doubled in price yet produced nothing before being killed?

Edited June 16, 2010 by MarkW

[MarkW]

More from the DEFSEC Gates on the plan (from SAC-D testimony yesterday):

"Let me be very clear. I will continue to strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the continuation of the C-17 or the F-35 extra engine."

Responding to Sen Inoye's cooment about $109B in cost growth:

"We had an independent estimating team in 2008 that identified some difficulties in the development program. I added almost $500 million -- or you added almost $500 million at my request to that program. We did another independent estimating effort last fall that made it clear this was more than a one-year problem.

And we've completely restructured the program. We fired the program manager; replaced him with one of the most experienced acquisition uniformed officers in the military. We withheld $600 million-plus from the contractor. We extended the development program. We slowed the production rate, in the early years, by 122 aircraft over a three or four-year period. So we'll have more aircraft -- fewer aircraft that are completed while the development program is continuing. We've added three aircraft to the development program.

So I think that we've taken a number of steps that are consonant with a restructuring of the program. We believe we have -- because of these outside estimating efforts, we think we have a much better fix on the nature of the problem that we have faced. I would tell you it's not a -- it's not particularly a good news story, but I would say -- I would point out that both the C-17 and the F-22 also went through restructurings earlier in the -- early in their -- in the program because of problems.

The good news, I would say, is that there hasn't been a single review that has discovered any fundamental technological or performance problems with the aircraft. It is meeting its performance parameters. What we think we have endured is primarily management and production problems, a lack of adequate execution on the part of the Defense Department itself.

My favorite story here is the supplier, where the F-35 is part of their factory -- they have a number of aircraft, the F-35 occupies 6 percent of the factory floor space and we pay 70 percent of the overhead for the factory. So we need to be a lot smarter about the way we execute this program.

So I think that we have a good, independent assessment of where we are. I think part of the problem with this program, frankly, over the last several years has been too rosy an estimate from the production program itself about how things were going, and I think we have a much more realistic approach now."

Responding to Sen Inoye's cooment about test slips:

"The dates that -- the dates that we have, Mr. Chairman, the latest information that I have is, first of all, we are on track to have a training squadron at Eglin Air Force Base in 2011. The Marine Corps will begin to receive their first aircraft in 2012, the Air Force in 2013, and the Navy in 2014. Full operational capability for the Air Force and the Navy will be in 2016, but those services will begin to receive aircraft earlier."

[pbcheez]

what makes sense is not what the companies selling this crap are going to do. they are going to take the path that makes them the most money. which inlcudes not upgrading our old stuff with some of the brand new crap on the stuff they are trying to sell in the package with the new crap.

in my opinion it would be better and cheaper to just overhaul our f-18s and f-15s and slap those f-135's in them.

[MarkW]

While an F-15 with 80,000 lbs of thrust is a tempting idea, the F-135 is so freakin' huge you'd have to redesign the entire airplane behind the cockpit to fit them in. Even then, you'd just have a really snappy, unstealthy aircraft to face the triple digit SAM threat. Not sure that would be worth the effort.

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

Gregg

[Alvis 3.1]

But does it make toast? Any decent 5th generation aircraft has to make toast!

:)

Alvis 3.1

[GreyGhost]

But does it make toast? Any decent 5th generation aircraft has to make toast!

Alvis 3.1

I hear the F-35 will also make English Muffins ...

Gregg

[Oroka]

But can you overclock it? What good is a stealth fighter if you cant overclock it?

[Alvis 3.1]

I hear the F-35 will also make English Muffins ...

Gregg

It better, if the RAF and the RN are buying any. It had also be capable of producing a decent poutine for us Canucks, and Vegemite Toast for the Aussies.

Alvis 3.1

[MarkW]

...and back to the news...

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/06/...igures_061810w/

AF rejects DoD cost estimates for F-35

By John Reed - Staff writer

Posted : Friday Jun 18, 2010 14:03:42 EDT

The Air Force’s top acquisition official said Friday that the service is not using the Pentagon’s latest cost estimates as its baseline price in its negotiations for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.

“There is no vectoring by the [F-35] negotiating team†based on estimates by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office released this month predicting that the overall costs of the airplanes could reach as high as $92 million each, David Van Buren, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said during a briefing. “We’re focused on the instant contract proposal at hand.â€

The Pentagon’s top weapon buyer, Ashton Carter, “holds us accountable not to accept a will cost [estimate] but to drive for the lowest cost across the board,†added Van Buren.

This means that Air Force negotiators are pushing aggressively for what “we believe is the appropriate cost†for the jets, Van Buren said. He did not elaborate on those numbers.

Lockheed Martin has said for months that the Pentagon’s initial offer for the latest batch of 32 low-rate initial production F-35s, known as LRIP-4, was 40 percent below the CAPE’s December 2009 cost estimate for the program, which at the time pegged the costs at roughly $76 million per plane in 2010 dollars.

Officials from the Bethesda, Md.-based firm first said in April that the final contract for LRIP 4 will be signed at more than 20 percent below the December 2009 CAPE estimates.

On Thursday, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice president of F-35 business development, reiterated the company’s stance that its LRIP 4 jets will be priced more than 20 percent below those estimates, noting that the price of its LRIP 3 lot of jets also came in at a price 20 percent below the Pentagon’s 2009 predictions.

[MarkW]

One other bit of trivia--Saturday marked the first day all three variants flew on the same day. Does absolutely nothing meaningful to move the program any more forward than three flight test sorties would by themselves, but still kind of marginally interesting.

Now the USAF, USMC and USN can make overclocked toast from coast to coast.

[Alvis 3.1]

Lol...

[GreyGhost]

Wow, the USAF actually thinks these are going to come in under $92 Million each ? Cool ...

Gregg

[Kei Lau]

Wow, the USAF actually thinks these are going to come in under $92 Million each ? Cool ...

Gregg

No question that the AF would like to get the next block of F-35 at under $92M. The question is whether LM will agree to it and sign the dots on the contract. They are in talk for the LRIP-4 contract.

The latest F-35 news from Defense Daily by Marina Malenic: Air Force Eyes 2016 For F-35 IOC, Reviews F-16 SLEP Plans

The F-15C already underway for the Radar Modernization Program and the A-10 is being re-winged. The late model F-16 is the logical next candidate for SLEP (service life extension program) since it would be the first one to retire without the SLEP.

Officials here said the cost difference between targeted legacy SLEPs and bringing in a new fleet of 4.5 generation fighters would be "eightfold," taking into account the support infrastructure that would be needed to maintain new aircraft models.

"Other than a full cancellation of the F-35 program, sustaining current fourth-gen is the answer to any capability gap that develops," said one official who asked not to be identified.

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

Gregg

[GreyGhost]

Another ... >>> Article <<<

Gregg

[MarkW]

One other tidbit--the C variant is doing wing folds after recovery, pictures will start popping up soon.

[GreyGhost]

>>> Press release <<<

I do like the National Insignia in that location better ...

Gregg

[Mark M.]

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

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

Gregg

Was reading up on new posts in this thread and spotted this old one.

Wouldn't work! All the noise of flying 2-3x the speed of sound to intercept a target (not to mention the speed of the aircraft carrying the missiles) would obliterate any sound whatsoever, I'd think.

[Oroka]

Interesting video about the laser-robotic system they use to paint the F-35.

http://gizmodo.com/5580999/this-is-how-loc...35-fighter-jets

[pbcheez]

GE engines are better and easier to work with.