View Full Version : F-35 JSF is in serious trouble.....
From the NY Times....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/03fighter.html
February 3, 2010
Gates Tries to Get F-35 Program Back on Course
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
WASHINGTON — The Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be the program that broke the mold, proof that the Pentagon could build something affordable, dependable and without much drama.
But rather than being the Chevrolet of the skies, as it was once billed, the fighter plane, also called the F-35, has turned into the Pentagon’s biggest budget-buster. And with worries growing that the rise in costs could overwhelm other programs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired the general in charge this week and said he would withhold $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin.
The decision was an embarrassment for Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest military contractor, which could eventually draw at least a quarter of its sales from the F-35. But Pentagon officials said they wanted to make sure they avoided the kind of death spiral that had caused so many other weapons programs to collapse.
The Air Force, the Navy and the Marines are planning to buy more than 2,400 of the planes. But any delays could force them to spend billions of dollars on less advanced fighters to avoid a shortfall. That, in turn, would reduce their orders for the F-35, driving up the price for each plane and forcing them to cut orders further.
The main problem, some analysts say, is that even with recent improvements in acquisition practices, the military persists in buying new weapons systems before all the kinks are worked out.
At the Pentagon’s behest, Lockheed Martin has already started building production models of the F-35, even though only 2 percent of the flight test program has been completed. “Unless they convert the program to a fly-before-you-buy approach, they will continue to have pain,” said Winslow T. Wheeler, an analyst for the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
But Pentagon officials said that given the rapid changes in technology, they could not afford to take such a gradual approach without systems becoming outdated before they rolled off the line. Lockheed Martin executives said that they had gotten the message about picking up the pace, and that they believed they would be able to start delivering the planes faster than the government now projects.
“They have been very clear that they intend to hold us to more aggressive standards, and we intend to perform to those,” Daniel J. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin’s project managers, told reporters on Tuesday.
Mr. Crowley acknowledged that the program, which has been adjusted several times, was running six months behind the latest schedule. But he said that after building the first few planes, the company had been able to sharply reduce how much time and money each one required. And that has given it more confidence that it can get back on track.
Mr. Gates also said on Monday that he knew of “no insurmountable problems, technological or otherwise, with the F-35.” But he added a year to the development phase of the program, and slowed plans to increase production, to give the company a chance to catch up.
Still, that solution is basically a gamble that the company will do better. The program, which is by far the Pentagon’s largest, is expected to cost nearly $300 billion if all of the 2,456 planes are purchased in the next 25 years. Eight allied nations have also invested in the program and could buy hundreds of additional planes.
Some senators sounded skeptical in questioning Mr. Gates at a hearing on Tuesday. “I’m still concerned about whether the services will get the J.S.F. when they need them,” said Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, referring to the plane.
Other senators criticized Mr. Gates, who promoted the coming of the F-35 as a reason to kill the more costly F-22 fighter program last summer, for not having a handle on the problems sooner.
Many of the concerns were outlined in a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008. Mr. Gates said at the hearing on Tuesday that he did not recall that report. He said he had intervened now to try to head off the dire projections in a similar assessment completed in the fall.
That study found that the development of the plane could be delayed by two and a half years and cost an extra $16.6 billion if no changes were made. Mr. Gates has also said that he replaced the head of the program, Maj. Gen. David R. Heinz of the Marine Corps, to show that officials would be held accountable “when things go wrong.”
When the Pentagon began thinking about the F-35 in the mid-1990s, the Pentagon was building the F-22, the world’s stealthiest fighter, for aerial dogfights, and it expected to buy 650 to 750 of them. The F-35, which also has stealth features to avoid radar, was meant to focus more on attacking ground targets. Creating three versions with a similar core — one each for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines — was supposed to make it more affordable.
But while delays and overruns pushed the cost of the F-22 so high that only 187 are being built, the projected costs of the F-35 program have also risen to $298.8 billion from an early estimate of about $200 billion.
Counting all the development costs, each F-35 is now projected to cost about $122 million compared with about $350 million for each F-22. Another concern is that additional problems often appear in flight testing. And a recent Navy study concluded that the F-35 could be significantly more expensive to operate than older fighters.
But Mr. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin’s top managers on the project, said the company had greatly reduced the parts shortages that delayed the first planes. He said the company was talking to the Pentagon about adding another plane to the flight test program, and it was much closer to finishing sensitive systems, like the software that operates the plane and its sensors, than it was at a similar stage on the F-22.
He added that it was “our intent to outperform” projections for the program, enabling the government to buy more planes than it expected to over the next few years.
Other industry officials said they had heard that Mr. Gates was likely to name Vice Adm. David J. Venlet, commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, to succeed General Heinz in overseeing the program. And given that Mr. Gates has had to backtrack from his praise for the program, he now has even more on the line in holding it together.
Business_Casual
02-03-10, 21:59
So this has nothing to do with politics, inter-Service rivalry and conflicting mission profiles for the F-35? It is all just Lockheed and Heinz's fault then? What are the chances that it ends up being the modern version of the F-111?
M_P
JBecker 72
02-03-10, 22:06
I still dont understand why we really needed all these "new" aircraft when the F15 and F117 seemed to work fantastically.
Thomas M-4
02-03-10, 22:16
I still dont understand why we really needed all these "new" aircraft when the F15 and F117 seemed to work fantastically.
F117 is retired out of service they were all handbuilt and expensive to maintain.
F-15 is 70s technology and no longer in production.
New Fighters like the euro fighter , Russians just test flown there answer to the F-22 rapter china is also developing a new fighter J-12 all of these new aircraft are 5th gen fighter designs F-15 4th gen.
WHO EVER CONTROLS THE AIR CONTROLS THE GROUND.
JBecker 72
02-03-10, 22:21
true ^
I just dont understand why we have to completely do away with proven platforms all together.
Thomas M-4
02-03-10, 22:35
true ^
I just dont understand why we have to completely do away with proven platforms all together.
The airframe's have a certain life span after which they have to be retired or rebuilt can only rebuild them so any times not to mention getting spare parts get harder and harder to find.
They will not do away with the platforms just they will be put into roles that are less stress-full to the airframes. And 2nd line units will use them [national guard units].
Why is it such a culster**** for our elected leaders and Gov to get shit done the right way and efficiently? It seems they are too incompetent to do anything within a budget.
Belmont31R
02-03-10, 22:36
true ^
I just dont understand why we have to completely do away with proven platforms all together.
Because we don't know what is around the corner. Our mil needs to be one step ahead of the curve. We can stick to old technology for a much cheaper price but at what point do you progress forward? The F15 frames are getting old, and in need of replacement. If we are going to spend the money on new birds, which we need, why not go for something better?
Not saying all our jets need to be super birds but we do need to maintain a fleet of them. It also advances the next generation technology.
JBecker 72
02-03-10, 22:39
I didnt think of airframe fatigue, makes sense.
true ^
I just dont understand why we have to completely do away with proven platforms all together.
Because I don't want to constantly keep maintaining them. The F-22 is a lot easier and less maintanance. Can't wait until the F-35 shows up.
ForTehNguyen
02-03-10, 22:40
I still dont understand why we really needed all these "new" aircraft when the F15 and F117 seemed to work fantastically.
Sukhoi T-50
From the article:
The Air Force, the Navy and the Marines are planning to buy more than 2,400 of the planes. But any delays could force them to spend billions of dollars on less advanced fighters to avoid a shortfall. That, in turn, would reduce their orders for the F-35, driving up the price for each plane and forcing them to cut orders further.
I'm just thinking out loud......and I realize that we're talking about huge leaps in technology and the costs associated with that, but we didn't dither about like this during WWII did we, when we were constantly modernizing our air power.
Sukhoi T-50
Several years, if not a decade down the pipeline, but yes, definitely something to think about.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=46056
parishioner
02-03-10, 22:51
Why is it such a culster**** for our elected leaders and Gov to get shit done the right way and efficiently? It seems they are too incompetent to do anything within a budget.
Seriously. These yahoos could screw up a cup of coffee.
ForTehNguyen
02-03-10, 22:51
mission bloat ftw, typical of the military. Lets have jet do almost everything imaginable, it will be great!
Thomas M-4
02-03-10, 22:55
From the article:
I'm just thinking out loud......and I realize that we're talking about huge leaps in technology and the costs associated with that, but we didn't dither about like this during WWII did we, when we were constantly modernizing our air power.
No body looks at history anymore:confused::rolleyes::mad:
shittercrewchief
02-04-10, 01:42
F-15 is 70s technology and no longer in production.
.
Not Entirely true F-15K is currently in production for south Korea. Great plane on par or better tech than our F-15's.
The Marine Corps needs F-35 Very badly. Their old Hornets and Harriers are falling apart.
ThirdWatcher
02-04-10, 01:55
No body looks at history anymore:confused::rolleyes::mad:
My thoughts exactly. Whenever we cut defense programs in the past, we paid dearly with young men's blood. The beginning of WWII is a perfect example.
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum".
dookie1481
02-04-10, 02:21
Not Entirely true F-15K is currently in production for south Korea. Great plane on par or better tech than our F-15's.
The Marine Corps needs F-35 Very badly. Their old Hornets and Harriers are falling apart.
Last deployment I went on we lost a Harrier in the Med (pilot ejected) and 2 others in the fleet went down before they got grounded. This was 2003.
Jay
SW-Shooter
02-04-10, 03:27
We are really screwing our self into a corner. With the NASA cuts and defense spending stagnant I fear for our great nation. Our children will pay for our generations mistakes.
Littlelebowski
02-04-10, 07:43
Last deployment I went on we lost a Harrier in the Med (pilot ejected) and 2 others in the fleet went down before they got grounded. This was 2003.
Jay
Same here on two WESPACs.
The F-22 is a lot easier and less maintanance.
Compared to what? The B-2?
You fly through a rainstorm in one, you need to repaint it or have the RCS ramp up drmatically, costing a couple of tens of thousands of dollars. Don't get me started on what happens when you do something so mundane as opening an access panel.
My Dad's involved with JSF on the contracting side; former Naval aviator and with a systems engineer with a doctorate, so he's got some insight. It's pretty clear that the lion's share of the fault lies with the vendor(s). Hell, I work for Lockheed Martin, though for a completely different division, and if 40% of what the winger-side does is as ganked up as some of the decisions our 8 layers of Council of Tribal Elders make, then they're a monkey humping a doorknob.
The vendor is definitely, distinctly the primary cause of the delay because the procurement model for the program amounts to nothing more than what's referred to as Paralysis By Analysis. Lockheed is big into the idea that Process = Product, which is such utter horseshit that it bends your mind. That, and the gravy-train mentality, because an airframe program has legs, so metering it out as long as they can is in the company's self-interest. The same sort of thing happened with General Dynamics and the Expeditionary Fighteing Vehicle. The vendor in that case took advantage of the Corps' general lack of institutional experience procuring GCE major-end-items, and raped them for a decade before somebody got wise and grabbed the right people by the stacking swivel.
What this article didn't say, from what I can see, is that a lot of the money being witheld is slated by the company to go toward what are supposed to be performance-based bonuses; HUGE taxpayer burden, given that the dough would go to rewarding failure. Gates is doing the right thing, if one considers the right thing to be having the people making the things our people use to fight hold their water and keep to what they promise to do in the contract. Witholding money is Gates' version of the forum Ban Hammer.
As for NASA, if they can ever get past doing noodnik experiments like tracking the sexual behavior of Tetse flies in zero gravity, they MIGHT deserve to get back the money that they are currently squandering to no viable benefit. As it is, if it isn't satellite repair, all the stuff they're doing is 9th grade earth-science lab fluff. "Benefitting pharecutical and medical research," my bleeding piles. They're straphangers who lost their relevance along with their nerve in 1986.
As for NASA, if they can ever get past doing noodnik experiments like tracking the sexual behavior of Tetse flies in zero gravity, they MIGHT deserve to get back the money that they are currently squandering to no viable benefit. As it is, if it isn't satellite repair, all the stuff they're doing is 9th grade earth-science lab fluff. "Benefitting pharecutical and medical research," my bleeding piles. They're straphangers who lost their relevance along with their nerve in 1986.
While I agree that there is a lot of waste at NASA, a lot of the perceived waste is by people who have no idea how important the little details are. To use your example (i know I know) The way that plants, insects, and other animals behave in low gravity is very important to the idea of space travel and possible colonization.
RogerinTPA
02-04-10, 10:02
They need to divert funds for TARP, health care, housing bale outs and other social experiments on the horizon.
I clearly missed the boat on this one. Seems not too long ago we gave a contract for an all new fighter that cost a BOAT load of money in the F-22 that was the world beater. We would control the skies for decades to come and this aircraft was among the most amazing technological advancements ever created. This was reflected in the price but it was justified with the fact that nothing else could come even close in any facet of what a fighter was required to do.
When did this whole F-35 come about and why is the F-22 no longer viable? I saw they were cutting jobs/production on it because I thought we had what we needed but why a whole new jet? I see it's a little smaller and has a single engine so it must be quicker, lighter, more maneuverable, less expensive? I'm baffled and don't get what all this is about. Someone clue in a clueless bastard please. :cool:
Belmont31R
02-04-10, 11:29
I clearly missed the boat on this one. Seems not too long ago we gave a contract for an all new fighter that cost a BOAT load of money in the F-22 that was the world beater. We would control the skies for decades to come and this aircraft was among the most amazing technological advancements ever created. This was reflected in the price but it was justified with the fact that nothing else could come even close in any facet of what a fighter was required to do.
When did this whole F-35 come about and why is the F-22 no longer viable? I saw they were cutting jobs/production on it because I thought we had what we needed but why a whole new jet? I see it's a little smaller and has a single engine so it must be quicker, lighter, more maneuverable, less expensive? I'm baffled and don't get what all this is about. Someone clue in a clueless bastard please. :cool:
The F35 and F22 serve two different roles. The F22 is a fighter meant for air superiority. The F35 is more for jack of all trades type plane with a naval requirement, and VSTOL. There wont be any F22's landing on carriers. The F35 will, and it will also replace the Harrier. The Marines like to take their own aircraft that can launch off ships to support their troops. They need a plane that can take off from sea. The F22 does not fit this role.
Its not a good idea to stop F22 production because it threatens our air superiority. Its fine right now because we don't face any forces that require us to fight for air superiority but we may someday, and Russia/China is going balls to the wall in aircraft development. We are only 1 generation away from losing that ability. The F35 is not going to be able to go toe to toe with the latest Russian stuff especially in the numbers they are being produced at.
After seeing the F22 in action I was amazed at it's capabilities and convinced that nobody could touch it in the skies. Then our leaders cut its funding. Now they're going to screw this up as well? It makes me think that thay are deliberately dismantling our military...
No need to control the skies when you're on your knees. Seems to me where we're headed.
I love pretty much anything that flies and think it's just damn silly to not have a kick ass plane in the arsenal.
Why can't we seem to build ANYTHING these days? Everything is way over budget, takes too long, and sometimes just dones't work at all.
Commance attack helecopter - oops
Seawolf - oops
F-22 - oops
F-35 - close to oops
Space shuttle replacement - big damn oops
The list could go on. Back in the days when everything was on paper with rulers and pencils, they could turn around new aircraft in a few years. Granted, stuff is more complex now - but the tools used to create and test them are also far more sophisticated as well.
Its not a good idea to stop F22 production because it threatens our air superiority.
That's because we're not supposed to feel superior anymore. We're part of a greater world community.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-04-10, 12:45
Did I see or read somewhere that against non-F22 aircraft, the F22 wins in head to head battles in everything from 2 on 2 to something like 2 on 12? F15s only get glancing shots by doing goofy stuff or something?
Its all going to be drones anyway....
Thomas M-4
02-04-10, 13:32
Did I see or read somewhere that against non-F22 aircraft, the F22 wins in head to head battles in everything from 2 on 2 to something like 2 on 12? F15s only get glancing shots by doing goofy stuff or something?
Its all going to be drones anyway....
I really think that is where this is heading UACV But there needs to be top of the line 5 th gen fighters for back up [Just in case circumstances] satellites can be shot down.
crusader377
02-04-10, 14:30
Why can't we seem to build ANYTHING these days? Everything is way over budget, takes too long, and sometimes just dones't work at all.
Commance attack helecopter - oops
Seawolf - oops
F-22 - oops
F-35 - close to oops
Space shuttle replacement - big damn oops
The list could go on. Back in the days when everything was on paper with rulers and pencils, they could turn around new aircraft in a few years. Granted, stuff is more complex now - but the tools used to create and test them are also far more sophisticated as well.
I think that the real reason why it seems that we can't build anything these days is because of the lack of competition amoung defense contractors. For example, Lockheed Martin is basically the only game in town when it comes to building 5th generation tactical aircraft. Yes, Boeing is still building advanced F-15 and the F-18 super hornet but both of those aircraft are derivatives of 4th generation aircraft. With this situation, there is no incentive for LM to run the F-35 program well because they get paid either way.
In contrast, back in the 1980s several companies were in the tactical aircraft business and there was competition in the system. The following companies were producing tactical aircraft in the 1980s.
McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing): F-15 and F-18, AV-8B
General Dynamics (Lockheed Martin): F-16
Grumann: F-14
Northrop: F-18 (was joint project with McDonnel Douglas) F-5 (Export only), F-20 (Private development which never sold but was available for sale)
Vought: A-7 (produced until 1984)
Fairchild: A-10
With this more competitive system if any program failed, the airforce, navy, or MC would at least have viable options moving forward instead of the current system in which if the F-35 fails or is cancelled, we lose our ability as the dominant air power. Also, although there were cost overruns on some programs in the 1980s the extent of these overruns were no where near that of the F-35 program.
I think that the real reason why it seems that we can't build anything these days is because of the lack of competition amoung defense contractors. For example, Lockheed Martin is basically the only game in town when it comes to building 5th generation tactical aircraft. Yes, Boeing is still building advanced F-15 and the F-18 super hornet but both of those aircraft are derivatives of 4th generation aircraft. With this situation, there is no incentive for LM to run the F-35 program well because they get paid either way.
In contrast, back in the 1980s several companies were in the tactical aircraft business and there was competition in the system. The following companies were producing tactical aircraft in the 1980s.
McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing): F-15 and F-18, AV-8B
General Dynamics (Lockheed Martin): F-16
Grumann: F-14
Northrop: F-18 (was joint project with McDonnel Douglas) F-5 (Export only), F-20 (Private development which never sold but was available for sale)
Vought: A-7 (produced until 1984)
Fairchild: A-10
With this more competitive system if any program failed, the airforce, navy, or MC would at least have viable options moving forward instead of the current system in which if the F-35 fails or is cancelled, we lose our ability as the dominant air power. Also, although there were cost overruns on some programs in the 1980s the extent of these overruns were no where near that of the F-35 program.
Don't worry, we can always bail out Lockheed. ;)
Rayrevolver
02-04-10, 18:26
Did I see or read somewhere that against non-F22 aircraft, the F22 wins in head to head battles in everything from 2 on 2 to something like 2 on 12? F15s only get glancing shots by doing goofy stuff or something?
Its all going to be drones anyway....
A Shocker shot down an F-22 during Red Flag.
http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf2202.jpg
They even painted an F-22 kill silhouette on it which caused a big stir within the USAF and USN.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2009/02/ea18g_f22kill-thumb-445x333.jpg
But yes, its all going UAVs. Some folks say the JSF could be the last manned fighter we ever build.
Belmont31R
02-04-10, 18:29
A Shocker shot down an F-22 during Red Flag.
http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf2202.jpg
They even painted an F-22 kill silhouette on it which caused a big stir within the USAF and USN.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2009/02/ea18g_f22kill-thumb-445x333.jpg
But yes, its all going UAVs. Some folks say the JSF could be the last manned fighter we ever build.
Those training evolutions are usually setup in a specific way giving one side an advantage....like that exercise we did in India where we got smoked... a real "blind" force on force battle the F22 would dominate with ease against anything being fielded right now.
[QUOTE=Riverine;562425]Compared to what? The B-2?
Compared to an F-15 and F-16. I work on them.
You fly through a rainstorm in one, you need to repaint it or have the RCS ramp up drmatically, costing a couple of tens of thousands of dollars. Don't get me started on what happens when you do something so mundane as opening an access panel.
A rainstorm will do nothing to it. This is not the F-117. I see panels open all the time in the flightline, doesn't take it out of service.
Are you in the Air Force and work on aircrafts?
Btw, it took two F-22s, 22 seconds to knock out an F-18 squadron from Fallon, NV. Training consists of many different scenerios to include simulating aircraft from around the world and has rules. I see Red Flag happen a lot here.
Guys,
If you really want to understand what is going on in the defense industry you need to Google the term "Iron Triangle".
Nobody in the industry is surprised by the article posted on the 1st page. The thing that people aren't talking about are the real reasons behind these schedule slips. We don't have enough talented individuals in the industry anymore, too many managers, and not enough work to train on or develop your skills. If you are lucky enough to get some people trained you probably end up losing them because of how the programs are under funded.
Now the bad side of the business, you have to understand how the game is played. The contractor knows that to win the job you have to bid low and make the initial number something your politian can support. But once the contract is awarded then it's time to get real and spend some money. All programs should follow the same set of rules by building the prototypes, flight testing, and redesign to correct issues found in flight testing before going into production. This would save the taxpayers millions of dollars but the only problem is what to do with all the people on staff during this phase of work. If you announce layoffs, it looks bad for the Senator or Congressman giving your program millions of dollars. So they come up with this initial low rate production vise to keep the people working and happy.
Those training evolutions are usually setup in a specific way giving one side an advantage....like that exercise we did in India where we got smoked... a real "blind" force on force battle the F22 would dominate with ease against anything being fielded right now.
Are you talking about the F-15's getting smoked by the Indians because AWACs wasn't allowed on station? That was politics at its finest!!! It was a rallying cry to keep from cutting F-22 funding at the time.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-05-10, 02:39
A Shocker shot down an F-22 during Red Flag.
Wow, a middle finger I can believe, but a shocker! Amazing!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Shocker_example.jpg/180px-Shocker_example.jpg
I really think that is where this is heading UACV But there needs to be top of the line 5 th gen fighters for back up [Just in case circumstances] satellites can be shot down.
China has demonstrated that they can knock our Satellites out.
Anyone ever consider that we are basically buying these things on the China Red Dragon Visa card?
So we are basically going to borrow $300 Billion to build a fighter for a conflict that we might get into withe the same guy we borrowed that $300 Billion from?
Am I the only one that senses some strangeness in this?
Those training evolutions are usually setup in a specific way giving one side an advantage....like that exercise we did in India where we got smoked... a real "blind" force on force battle the F22 would dominate with ease against anything being fielded right now.
While I cannot disagree with the first statement, I do disagree with the second. It has happened more than once, against the Growler, and it has happened against the Rhino.
However, in each case it is more a matter of tactics, not the inherent inferiority or superiority of the weapon system. As usual, it matters less what round you're shooting than where you place that round, so to speak.
Also wanted to add, the above facts do not rule out the incidents being a fluke. :)
Rayrevolver
02-05-10, 12:51
Wow, a middle finger I can believe, but a shocker! Amazing!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Shocker_example.jpg/180px-Shocker_example.jpg
This was cute. Notice the lightning bolts... "They'll Never See It Coming"
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2388&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1223182150
PS - Mech Eng, you hit the nail on the head. We have so many noobs across the boards that its scary. We are making very silly mistakes. Even then most kids aren't going into engineering anyways. Aviation Week had an article a few years ago called the Aerospace Brain Drain and its all coming true.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.