Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Geogen,

IMHO, if the Congress caps buys at anything below what was quoted at the start, then they do not have a log to stand on when Nunn–McCurdy is breached. Congress has created a self-fulfilling prophecy but consistently cutting orders.

btw, a Nunn–McCurdy breach does not mean that the program gets canceled or reduced, just that it need to be re-certified.

Quote:

It requires cost growth of more than 15% to be notified to the United States Congress, and calls for the termination of programs whose total cost grew by more than 25% over the original estimate, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation certifying that the program is essential to the national security, that no suitable alternative of lesser cost is available, that new estimates of total program costs are reasonable, and that the management structure is (or has been made) adequate to control costs.

Very rarely is a program actually cancelled under this provision—Congress normally regards the explanations from the Secretary of Defense as acceptable—but it has led to many changes to project management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80 ... _Amendment

F-16.net Sponsor

One might consider that Sec Gates in Congressional testimony this week was crystal clear that there will not be 1 for 1 replacement of legacy aircraft. With this in mind the projected force structure reductions within the QDR seem to clearly demonstrate the long stated requirement for 1,763 F-35A's is currently fiction. Moreover, reducing force structure is a neat way to deal with the gap in tactical aviation caused by accelerated retirement of legacy aircraft. Together with increased buys of UAV's the need for F-35A's has been significantly reduced.

Of course how this affects projected unit costs can not be dealt with until the USAF produces a new total buy projection based on the new assumptions outlined in the QDR. The other shoe has yet to drop in this regard. Anyone that cares to project F-35 unit cost at this point lacks some of the required data.

lb wrote:

One might consider that Sec Gates in Congressional testimony this week was crystal clear that there will not be 1 for 1 replacement of legacy aircraft. With this in mind the projected force structure reductions within the QDR seem to clearly demonstrate the long stated requirement for 1,763 F-35A's is currently fiction. Moreover, reducing force structure is a neat way to deal with the gap in tactical aviation caused by accelerated retirement of legacy aircraft. Together with increased buys of UAV's the need for F-35A's has been significantly reduced.

Of course how this affects projected unit costs can not be dealt with until the USAF produces a new total buy projection based on the new assumptions outlined in the QDR. The other shoe has yet to drop in this regard. Anyone that cares to project F-35 unit cost at this point lacks some of the required data.

I think ur interpretation is a bit off. It is true that sec. gates said that a 1:1 replacement was not going to happen but its wrong of us to assume that this means such things as a .5:1 replacement is going to happen. According to my own numbers looking at what some officials say and the 30 yr aircraft plan, it looks like the repalcement is going to be on the order of .8:1 or for every 10 legacy craft retired, 8 new ones will be bought. I get this by looking primarily at the 30 yr aircraft procurement plan which swhich shows that 80 new aircraft will be procured every year starting in 2015 for every 100 legacy craft retired

I will also say in regards to the QDR that the 30 yr aircraft plan mentions this specific force structure while sticking to the idea that we will acqure F-35's in similar numbers (1763) as proposed earlier.

I will also say this. I think many of us jump the gone and overreact with pessimism everytime we hear about change. We must keep it simple sometimes. The truth is that drastic change in in government run programs almost never happens. This includes the military. I highly doubt that capital hill will allow our fighter force to drop by almost 50% in the next decade or even after that for the forseable future. I think the more accurate number is 20% reduction which is inline with most of the numbers that have been presented.

on edit: i'd also like to mention that if the plan really is to reduce fighter aircraft to 1,120 from the current operation requirement of 2,200 i believe there would be more of a fuss in the Mainstream media and congress for that fact. As i have said before this would be a radical cut, and anything radical usually is looked down upon by the media and congress. I think that any military personal who testified to something that drastic infront of congress would probably have their a$$ handed to them. Remember the fights when it came to cutting F-22 production; that barely squeeked by. also if the airforce couldnt get there way when it came to cancelling the second engine for the F-35 i doubt they would get their way with regards to drastically cutting our fighter force.

I think we are just looking a little too much into this whole situation.

The 30 year plan is a fictional construct that allows the current administration to under capitalize procurement which is scheduled to steadily decline over the next few years that requires future administrations to make up the shortfall in later years. This almost never actually happens in the budget process. The testimony to Congress about what was happening to the shipbuilding base in the early 1990's was spot on accurate and the USN is never going to recover. In theory we might get back to the number the USN needs in 30 years but it's not going to happen in the real world. Once upon a time there were various other long range plans for USAF tactical aviation as well but none of them planned on having 1 1/2 wings of F-22's.

To argue the QDR can't really be right as Congress and the media would be in an uproar is problematic. Especially if one assumes the 30 year air plan is accurate but the current force structure planning is not. The number of 10 or 11 strike wings yields 720 to 792 primary aircraft for a ballpark required buy of 1,080 to 1,188 F-35A's and this includes F-15E total replacement. The reality is some portion of strike F-35A's will additionally be replaced with fighter sized UCAS programs. Consider the USN current plan is fly 1 sqdn of F-35C's, 1 sqdn of X-47B/UCAS-D, and 2 of F/A-18E/F. Fighter class UCAS, as of yet, are not programmed into the requirement for manned strike wings.

It's not at all clear how many F-35A's will be purchased long term to replace legacy aircraft but if one includes MQ-9's and future UCAS programs into the mix with the F-35A then it is entirely responsible to see overall numbers of F-35A's end up closer to .5 to 1; moreover, Sec Gates in Congressional testimony was clear he viewed MQ-9 units as much more capable than F-16 units in some roles.

There was no uproar in Congress or the media when USN carrier air wings lost their medium attack sqdn's, patrol/asw sqdn's, ELINT and dedicated tanker aircraft the past 20 years. Current carrier air wings are about 1/3 smaller with far less range and long range loiter ability due to loss of F-14's, A-6, KA-6, S-3, etc. The USN has focused on operating the wing it can afford and if the F-35C is not brought under cost controls there is every reason to believe it will be canceled which will of course impact the rest of the F-35 program. For those who do not believe this might seriously come to pass it's worth considering F-14D, A-6F, A-12, and CSA (the program to replace the S-3, EA-3, E-2, and C-2).

The 1,763 number is a fictional number. Even LM when questioned said it made sense only by assuming replacement of all remaining F-15's. Even if one assumes all 10 strike wings and 4 of 6 air superiority wings are F-35 that is around 1,500 total (1,008 plus 50% attrition, training, etc.) If the current plan is 10 or 11 strike wings then one needs to assume some are replaced by fighter size UCAS in the mid term. Note all of this further assumes the cost growth in the program is brought under control which is something we all hope for but has not been demonstrated yet. Indeed with escalating costs and delayed production at some point it will be difficult to justify not buying some numbers of X-47B/UCAS-D or similar aircraft to supplement the F-35A strike wings especially given much greater range and loiter ability.

We had a radical cut in the USN both in terms of numbers of ships and number of aircraft in the carrier air wings and there was no uproar. The US Army was cut from 18 to 10 divisions and even though both candidates Obama and Clinton stated the US Army required expansion back to 12 divisions during the 2008 campaign the US Army will remain at 10 divisions and there has been no uproar at any point. The USAF is being downsized. It's in the QDR. It's official policy. The USAF has pretty much bet the farm on F-35A. It appears to be a wonderful aircraft. One hopes we can afford the numbers projected in the QDR.

At some point in the next year or two the 1,763 number will be changed. There is a new program manager and Dr Carter understands the situation now. The JSF program office is not going to be allowed to hide from reality anymore. There are reports the process of informing our partners that projected numbers will be reduced has already begun.

You make very valid points. I should be a bit more specific in that i was talking more about the overall fighter force rather than just the F-35 (i think we had a bit of a miscommunication). I really just don't see the overall fighter force getting that low. I think at one point there is alway a straw that breaks the camels back and i don't see congress agreeing to a reduction of close to 50%. Maybe they may have agreed to this 10 years ago when we were still sloughing off some cold war fat but not now (just because they got away with it before doesnt mean they will get away with it now). I think there are too many interests at stake. I am also not saying that the F-35 will fill the gap entirely- i believe eventually that unmanned fighter aircraft (something along the line of the X-47) will start to take their place among the ranks of Fighter Aircraft of the USAF. That could actually increase the overall fighter force eventually since i believe fough estimates are that the UCAV would cost 20-25 million dollars each

on edit: do you have a good break down of the current USAF wing structure, i can't find a good one online at this moment (like how many strike wings and air superiority wings)

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

2010 QDR and F-35 Production Numbers