Posted: 12/7/2006 11:58:05 AM EDT
|
Fighter Jet Program Vulnerable Associated Press | December 04, 2006 ARLINGTON, Va. - To the military and defense firms that make it, the F-35 Lightning II is a "next generation" fighter jet, a technological leap meant to replace several aging fighters and help America maintain its dominance in aerial warfare. The Pentagon plans to buy thousands of the new stealthy jets, to be flown by three branches of the military and by eight foreign countries. And despite being the most expensive Pentagon spending program ever, with a total cost of about $275 billion, each plane is supposed to be relatively cheap to build, a rarity in defense spending. But as the first F-35 prepares for its inaugural flight sometime this month, it takes off into some cloudy skies. The program's cost has grown substantially while the number of planes to be built has dropped. Congress has shown a willingness to make cuts, and the coming leadership change at the Pentagon may muddy the plane's future. Although officials from the Pentagon and the lead contractor, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., say they are optimistic about the plane's future, they acknowledge the risk of the jet falling into a defense "death spiral," a cycle of cuts and higher costs that beset one of the F-35's closest fighter jet kin. "You get into this classic problem of the airplane continues to get more expensive, and therefore you buy less airplanes, and it gets more expensive and you buy less airplanes," Lockheed F-35 program head Tom Burbage said at a briefing this fall at the company's offices near the Pentagon in Arlington. "We are trying to get out of that spiral." The jet program is at a vulnerable moment in its 10-year life, shifting from the costly research and development phase to the infancy of production. Under the Pentagon plan, spending on new F-35s is projected to average more than $1 billion per month by 2012, a clip expected to last for more than ten years. Up to 2,500 planes would be built for the United States alone. The project's large price tag makes it a tempting target for lawmakers - it narrowly avoided deep cuts this fall in Congress and saw its initial production numbers scaled back. Budget watchdogs warn that the Pentagon is rushing the F-35 into production without first proving its advertised capabilities. Some military analysts say the early erosion is a worrisome sign. "Every time critics succeed in getting it cut, the average cost of the airplane goes up," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the nonpartisan Lexington Institute, who predicts the number of F-35s made for the U.S. military could eventually be cut by up to a third. "What is beginning to happen to the F-35 is precisely what happened to the F-22." The recent resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also clouds the picture of the F-35, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. Rumsfeld was a foe of the F-22, a high-performing plane popular with the Air Force. His departure could shift more funds to the costly F-22 at the F-35's expense. "The real danger is if the F-22 gobbled up the cash," Aboulafia said. The F-22, conceived to fight the now defunct Soviet Union, is another technologically advanced jet and a cousin to the F-35. But the program has been sharply scaled back. Initial plans called for 750, but only 183 are slated to be built, with each plane costing around $350 million, including development costs. The F-35 is a similar jet, with the same stubby nose and twin tail fins, advanced radar, stealth design and other fighting capabilities. But it is also designed for greater versatility; It will be one of the first to allow a pilot to easily shift from bombing runs to aerial combat on the same mission. It will replace several older fighters, including the Air Force's workhorse F-16. First proposed in the 1990s, the F-35, also called the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, was a new tack in defense contracting. It is a single plane to meet the different needs of three military branches, a rarity for big weapons deals. That meant a jet with three variations - an aircraft carrier plane for the Navy, an Air Force jet that uses a runway and a Marine Corps plane that can take off and land vertically. Countries such as Britain, Australia and Canada also plan to fly the F-35. Each variation uses the same research process and can be constructed on the same assembly line. That emphasis on cost was rare for bid defense programs, said Jacques Gansler, the former undersecretary of defense in charge of contracting during the late 1990s. "It is going to be a very expensive program, but it is a low-cost airplane," said Gansler. "It is hard to put those words together, but the reality is that it is a low-cost airplane times a large number of airplanes." Yet that cost savings has already shrunk. Upfront development costs make up a major portion of the cost of a new fighter, meaning if fewer are made, the per plane cost is higher. The F-35 cost $45 billion to develop - a figure that is up 84 percent from 1990s estimates. Problems with weight and other factors helped drive up the price. Meanwhile, the number of F-35s dropped. More than 2,800 were planned when Lockheed won the contract in 2001, at a price between $37 million and $47 million depending on the version. By the end of 2005, only 2,450 were envisioned, at a cost of between $44.5 million and $61.7 million each, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. In September, Congress approved funding for only two of the five first jets requested, although it did budget to buy parts for 12 more. An earlier Senate proposal would have blocked funding of all five Lockheed and defense officials say it is important that Congress allowed production to begin, but they stress that future reductions could be costly. "You can easily make JSF an unaffordable airplane," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Davis, the F-35's program officer. But there are concerns the F-35 is moving too fast. In a report in March, the GAO said the Pentagon planned to produce 424 planes through 2013 before all the flight testing was finished. If early problems arise, the program could face delays and even greater costs, the GAO concluded. Davis said those fears are exaggerated, that much of the ground testing already done on the F-35 should reduce the risk of problems arising later. He said the F-35 team has closely analyzed woes that beset the F-22, such as software errors and development problems, to avoid any repeats. Despite the challenges, Davis predicts the plane will meet its goals. But it depends on how well the F-35 performs, both in the skies and at the bottom line. "We control our own destiny," he said. "I hope that if we are able to deliver on schedule, to deliver on budget, to keep the performance going that we won't be handed cuts just because cuts need to be made." http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119909,00.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl |
So how are these problems different from any other Gov. Acqusition? The jet is comming here, soon. Everything is in place and were just waiting on the first acft.
BTW, how is your Airbus stock doing Vito? 
|
|
The key to keeping the unit cost down on the F-35 is too keep the production number reletivley high. We have to fight the air frame contraction in the Air Force or we will find ourselves in a very precarious position of not being able to project power except in the most dire of circumstances because of the risk associated to our ever shrinking forces and capabilities. The congress needs to wake up and stop mandating F-22 cuts to fund the F-35 or vice versa. 183 F-22s would be a disaster, as would less then 3000 total US F-35s. The problem is that of timing, because while we are trying to afford modernizing our fighter fleet we are also going to have to start replacing other equally important aquisition efforts and R and D programs. For example shutting down the C-17 production far too early, not developing a replacement to the C-5 for startigic airlift, putting off the LSA and Prompt global strike. We have to find a solution to these problems, one is obvious, we are not spending nearly as much as we should on defence and modernization money is being syphoned off to finance combat operations. If we want to continue to be a credible global military force an additional 100-300 billion a year on defense. (The navy is in worse shape then the air force with all sorts of ship aquisition and fleet contraction problems) The other is have to get smarter on how we develop new systems. For example the process of 'cost-plus' contracting has to go and we need to streamline development. A 15 year long development process should not be the norm for a simple fighter incorporating existing technologies. That is pathetic and we can do much better then that. |
|
Buy more B-2's and F-22's. Possibly buy F-22 two seater (a simple two seater, not the uber redesigned artist concept floating around) if you need it for certain missions. B-2's and F-22's go in first and eliminate the IAD and enemy AF, and then conventional a/c can join in the bombardment campaign. Keep the F-35 for the USN, USMC and RAF, but the USAF should spend its money on the F-22 and 40 more B-2's for 30 billion. |
The unit cost per F-35 vs an F/A-18 or even an F-22 does not add up now. Unit cost per F-22 : @ $116 million for a follow on order Unit cost per F/A-18E : @ $65 million for a follow on order Unit cost per F-35 : @ $95 million is the latest guestimate and that's expected to rise The 'cheap' F-35 has become the less capable and just as expensive and increasingly late F-35. We've been told that an ISD of 2014 is now the target for 'our' F-35's. ANdy |
) we'd be better off.
I remember the good old days when the F-35 was supposed to be a "$30M" airplane -  . We didn't really believe it then either. |
No, just buy: 40 more B-2's for 30 billion F-22 ~500-600 Enough F-35 for Carrier use and Marines (since we need a CVN stealth a/c) F/A-18E/F F-16 block 60 or greater replacing older blocks in service |
Navalized Typhoons or F/A-18E's. The Bug is the preferred option. The delays on the F-35 are actually impacting the final design of our two new large fleet carriers now. If the F-35 works as advertised STVOL is a go, but if the F-35 stumbles it's going to need to be a CTOL carrier… ANdy |
Biggest bomb you can carry internally on the STOVL version is now 1,000lbs… the end users are not too impressed. ANdy |
|
Picture: First Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter set to fly next week By Graham Warwick Lockheed Martin is preparing to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for the first time next week (pictured below). A flight readiness review was planned for today following analysis of some small data “anomalies” observed during engine runs on Wednesday. If given the go-ahead, Lockheed will begin low-speed and high-speed taxi tests at the Fort Worth, Texas plant, after which the engine will undergo a boroscope inspection, says JSF deputy programme executive officer Brig Gen David Heinz. He plays down the anomalies detected during engine runs. “We are sampling nine different databus on this airframe, and seeing into things we have never seen into before and the engineers saw bit changes they didn’t expect,” he says. “There is a lot of conservatism, but there are also certain acceptable risks. I am confident we will fly next week,” Heinz says. Lockheed has been aiming for an 11 December first flight, but the weather forecast makes this unlikely, he says. The F-35’s maiden flight will be the first by an all-new US fighter since the Lockheed/Boeing F-22 took to the air on 7 September 1997, and will come just over five years after the company won the JSF competition. Its X-35 concept demonstrator aircraft first flew on 24 October 2000. The first JSF development aircraft to fly, AA-1, is a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant, but is not structurally representative of production F-35s because of later design changes introduced to reduce the weight of the short take-off and landing (STOVL) variant. Heinz says a 60min first flight is planned, flown by Lockheed ‘s JSF chief test pilot John Beesley, during which the aircraft will be flown first to 11º angle of attack and then to 14º to clear the approach and landing envelope. “We will fly to 25,000ft and cycle the gear,” he says. The Co-operative Avionics Test Bed, or CATBird, a modified Boeing 737-300 that will be used to flight test the JSF mission-system avionics and software blocks before they fly in the F-35, is expected to fly a week later, says Heinz. The aircraft has been modified by JSF partner BAE Systems at its Mojave, California site, with addition of the F-35’s forebody on the nose, a geometrically representative “wing” mounted on the forward fuselage in which sensors will be located, and an F-35 cockpit and engineering stations installed inside. The CATBird will be flown to Fort Worth for installation of the sensors and other systems. The next JSF development aircraft, the first “optimised-airframe” STOVL F-35B, is now due to fly in the second quarter of 2008, says Heinz. The first flight was delayed by the weight-reduction redesign and subsequent problems encountered in machining a new fuselage bulkhead introduced as part of the redesign. Internationally, the JSF programme office expects all eight partner nations – with the possible exception of Norway - to sign the memorandum of understanding on the production, sustainment and follow-on development phase by the end of the year. Norway could slip into next year because of “staffing issues”, Heinz says. The Netherlands has already signed, and Canada and Australian are expected to sign next week, he says. Negotiations are in the final stages with the other partners: Denmark, Italy, Turkey and the UK, which is the biggest international participant. The UK’s defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, is to visit Washington DC next week to review progress with crucial technology transfer negotiations. The UK is insisting on “operational sovereignty” over its planned F-35s. |
When I was doing some work related to the weapons bay doors on the Boeing PWSC (Preferred Weapons System Configuration, i.e., the production version), the mechanism impinged on the bay volume to the point that I'm not sure we could have carried anything but (little) missles. It was rediculous, and the project was oblivious, always resonding with standard management Mantra #2, "Don't worry, we'll work those details out later." The thing about managing risk is that you have to give yourself a fighting chance. [In case you're wondering, Mantra #1 is, "We aren't worried, that's an isolated anomaly." ] |
Yup I've been looking forward to this. Can't wait to go out there and see it fly! |
Nope, pretty sure he was referring to Boing. Here, i'll help you out cause I know you Brits are a tad slow:
|
That applies to the whole industry and every contractor - I know this is so because I have heard it from executives and managers from each company. They say crap like this even though they know it's BS and they know the audience knows it's BS; they can't help it, that's their training. Whether it's ethical, or simply "right or wrong", is a whole 'nuther story. All that really matters to these folks in the end is whether the act is illegal, and a manager that gets ahead in this industry is one that probes the edges of the law and ethics. Occasionally one falls off the edge. |
Just ribbing Vito and giving him a hard time. vit, How do you like your crow? medium-well? 
|
We're reaping what we sow on this program. This is the price we pay for pushing a multi-role super jet instead of sticking to options along the lines of the KISS method. It's a lesson we shouldn't have to learn the hard way, but there are too many chefs in the kitchen making decisions. |
You have no idea. We've finally hit bureaucratic overload at the Pentagon where no program can meet successful completion. The US can't even procure a pistol. |
I saw it taxing last week. It is scheduled to fly this week. They are expecting crowds to be out watching it. |
But, but, but where would your job be without requirements creep?
|
I've been watching it on webcam, just left the hangar... not sure yet what time it will fly but I think it's going to be today. |
|
I flew one last thursday. In a manner of speaking. I got to try out Lockheed-Martin's portable F-35B STOVL simulator at a trade show in Orlando, FL. It was pretty impressive and the way that the plane is flown while in lift fan mode and the way it transitions to normal light is VERY slick and simple to operate. CJ |
I think you are right, it is taxiing now and indications are it is about to take off. EDIT: Call sign is LIGHTNING 01 If you have a scanner 363.15 will be their Reg. A/D freq. and V-10 (123.15) is being used as the primary flight test freq. |
I don't think the taxi tests have been completed. Have they? |
Link? |
It's internal. It came back to the hangar though.  The taxi tests were done last week, final clearance was given Friday. |
It's at the JRB? I might have to drive up and watch it sometime. My sister lives close and I went to school up there. |
|
|
The continuing push to make every plane the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world is only helping to make things worse. The last time the designers and builders (and the customer) REALLY got their shit together and built what was really NEEDED rather than what some people wanted was when the F-16 was designed and built. It started out as a PURE fighter. "Not a pound for air to ground". It was designed using Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability theories and was built for just one purpose: To knock enemy planes out of the air with devastating efficiency. However, mission creep continuously extended the capability of the F-16 in multiple roles but never did any of these new additions make it better in its designed role as a pure dogfighter. Fortunately, it didn't really lose much capability there, as new more powerful engines offset the weigh increases in progressive models. But today's new production F-16C Block 52+ is a dramatically more complex (and heavier and more powerful) aircraft than the earliest production A models. Specialization is what's really needed again in order to ensure that each plane is put to the best possible use. F-35s should be intended to handle enemy fighter threats and that's it. F-22s should take on strike roles. Not that an F-22 can't be a fighter, too, but if you have larger hauling capacity, use it to deliver bombs. The way things seem to be going, by the time the F-35 is in service, every fighter class plane in the inventory will list the same general capabilities. Some will just be stronger in some capabilities than others, that's all. To me it's like trying to make an all-purpose cutting utensil. But you end up with a compromise that will neither chop down a tree worth a damn nor do a good job as a razor. If you need a hammer, get a hammer. If you need an icepick, get an icepick. We don't need every plane to be multi-role. CJ |
OK, I'm confused. 1. It was the F-15 that inspired the phrase, "Not a pound for air-to-ground." 2. The F-22 is the pure fighter, not the F-35. The F-22 can only handle the SDB, as opposed to the F-35s 2,000lb bomb capability. Am I missing something here? |
Well you're half right. On #1, it was definitely the F-15 development team that used that phrase as their motto (hence zero, no, none, nada, zippo air-to mud hardware or software on the F-15 A,B,C,D). The lawn dart had weapon pylons and delivery systems from the very beginning. On #2, the F-22 weapon bay is the same size as some F-35 variants and bigger than others (the STO/VL abortion). Both aircraft will be able to carry two 2,000lb bombs or 8 SDBs internally. The F-22 also has missile bays to carry AIM-120s and AIM-9Xs. |