Forum: F-35 Lightning II

JSF IOC - Slip Slidin' Away Posted by Amy Butler at 2/26/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said yesterday that the initial operational capability (IOC) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has slipped for the U.S. Air Force to late CY 2015.

His comments were a response to a question from Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) during a hearing. Kissell asked when the service would have "deployable, meaningful numbers of aircraft in the air," as reported by the Inside the Air Force newsletter.

Donley's spokesman, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Glenn, confirms that his answer was indeed a shift for the official IOC date.

This is about a two-year slip. Only a week ago, Gen. William Fraser, commander of ACC (which will operate the stealthy single-engine fighter), said he was "re-evaluating" that date. He says the Air Force wants to declare IOC, which is an appropriate number of aircraft and spares to deploy and handle the mission, with Block III software. The Marine Corps is willing to go with the less capable Block II software in 2012.

With the restructuring in the Fiscal 2011 budget plan, JSF flight testing will conclude in the fall of 2014, with a test report out most likely the following year.

This shift could signal an unwillingness on the part of the Air Force to declare operational capability before the aircraft and its software are fully tested. "

F-16.net Sponsor

IOW, the people responsible for the intrinsically flawed design of this sloow-motion train wreck , ie; the USMC, will be declaring 'IOC' with something that looks like a combat aircraft, but in operational terms is equivalent to a gold-plated pogo stick...

JL

It was General Schwartz who made the comment on F-35 IOC for the USAF. It was also very interesting that his comments when questioned about the projected 800 aircraft shortfall in FY2024 was that the number was now less than 200 based on A) the number of top line aircraft being slightly reduced to 2,024 and B) assuming buys of 80+ F-35A per year. So we're retiring accelerating numbers of fighters this year (250) and will continue to retire aircraft and the USAF plan is to cover with large buys of an aircraft it will not get to projected for 5 1/2+ years?

One might read the recently made public monthly reports on LM production by DCMA. Some of the reports note parts are cannibalized from the assembly line to support the flight test program and that LM stating things are getting better vis a vis production is entirely false. It's by no means certain USAF IOC will not get pushed out further and it's further not clear exactly when the USAF will start receiving enough production F-35A's at 80+ to prevent the shortfall in USAF aircraft, even at the new reduced requirements, to not rise well above the cited 200.

As an aside during the hearing I believe at least 6 members brought up the F-136 (2nd engine) and basically said Sec Gates and the USAF could not produced any documentation citing their fantastic claims and they once again wanted the "new" analysis. The 2008 analysis said it was a wash meaning the 2nd engine was in fact a bargain as it provides all manner of hedged risks for neutral cost. Low and behold on the Feb 24th Congress got the long asked for analysis from DOD CAPE Director Christine Fox which, again, appears basically cost neutral and thus actually supports keeping the 2nd engine alive.

http://www.dcma.mil/dcmahq/FOIA/reading_room.cfm

This is a link to all 24 monthly reports on LM by DCMA to the JSF program office.

Hey, lb, since you seem to be keeping up with the Joneses in Congress, has there been any grumbling about the fact we may have ended Raptor production too soon, given the F-35's woes?

Sure there is a lot of "grumbling" and it's across party lines. House Armed Services is a very bi partisan run committee and many members have observed that much of the justification was based on how well, a year ago, JSF was doing and that together with the acceleration of the program (since scaled back) this is exactly what Sec Gates used to justify to the committee cutting F-22 production.

The issue however at this point is the status of the F-35A and how far the numbers of tactical aviation will drop before F-35 purchases can begin to close the gap. Gen Schwartz testified that the once projected gap of 800 aircraft by 2024 is now only 200 aircraft due partly to lowering the top line to 2,024 but mostly by increasing yearly buys to 80+. That appears problematic given the program has severely delayed flight test schedule, an unknown unit cost (the program was just restructured last month), continuing production problems at LM (see recent release above of 24 monthly reports), and now IOC is for late 2015 which on the Hill everyone reads as 2016. Some might point out that knowing then what they know now that Congress would not have cut F-22 production but everyone is clear that horse left the barn. That said some members clearly feel they were misled and do not have the same level of positive views of Sec Gates that they did last year.

One issue to watch out for in my view is the status of the F-35C. Sec Gates and Adm Mullen do not want the USN to buy more F/A-18E's than is already in the budget. There really is no option for the USAF but to wait for the F-35A but the USN can always buy more Super Hornets and Congress might like to indicate their displeasure by buying more especially if it's seen as covering for even more delays in the F-35C. The USAF and USMC have bet everything on the F-35A and B and have no other real options on the table but keep on eye on the C.

lb wrote:

The USAF and USMC have bet everything on the F-35A and B and have no other real options on the table but keep on eye on the C.

Sure they do, the Viper lines are still open.......just sayin

So are the F-15 lines

The USAF has not purchased an F-16 or F-15 in more than a decade. Sec Gates and Adm Mullen in testimony this month were very clear they did not support buying 4th gen fighters. The budget process is often seen in zero sum terms. Thus money for more F-16's would mean, or be seen to mean, less money for F-35. On a political level it's a non starter.

Certainly it was not responsible for the USAF to not purchase any new fighters in over a decade. In fact it was idiotic and irresponsible. At this point however if the USAF is willing to buy an F-16 Congress would rightly ask why they need more expensive F-35's if F-16's will do the job. If the answer is they are just gap fillers then you open a can of worms on buying more and delaying the F-35.

In a perfect world if you needed say 2,400 aircraft and they lasted 30 years then you would buy 80 aircraft every year (or less if they lasted longer). As the USN shipbuilding plan has shown the past two decades we do not live in that world.
This is exactly why the status of the F-35 is so critical- it's really F-35 or bust for the USAF and USMC.

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

lb wrote:

The USAF and USMC have bet everything on the F-35A and B and have no other real options on the table but keep on eye on the C.

Sure they do, the Viper lines are still open.......just sayin

lb, are you a Congressional aide, by chance? A cousin of mine is a former McCain staffer, and I was with Obama during the campaign and, waaaay back in college, I was a student senator. However, I rather like being an observer of politics more than a participant; the Obama campaign reminded me just how petulant and self-involved people involved in politics can be. And how, paradoxically, removed from reality they can be. No offense meant, of course.

My take on Congress' reaction is pretty much in line with yours. I can well imagine more than a few members being ticked off at having possibly been tricked into ending F-22 production by misleading - at best - testimony regarding the "progress" the F-35 was supposed to be making at the time. I suspect the Obama administration and Gates specifically knew quite well that the F-35 was in trouble, and they intentionally misled Congress about its progress or lack thereof to get the F-22 killed. Do I sound a bit disillusioned with the Obama administration after having served with his campaign? I suppose I am. He has shown himself to be a brilliant campaigner but a lousy, incompetent, ineffectual politician. Exhibit A: the way he has thoroughly screwed health care, possibly setting the cause for real reform back another half century in the process.

Anyway, I also see the F-35C as you do, as the most vulnerable of the three variants. After someone evidently pretty high up in the Navy leaked a damning life-cycle cost estimate, it appears as if there are some influential folks in the Navy who are not particularly thrilled about the F-35C. And who can blame them? I do agree with Raptor_DCTR, though: the USAF does have an alternative in the shape of further evolved Vipers and Eagles. Unfortunately, however, it does seem as if the F-35 is on rails, politically, at least. That is unless, of course, Congress intervenes, and decides to stop throwing more good money after bad. ELP has made the point that with a force of some 500 Raptors and the rest updated Vipers and Eagles the USAF can be just as effective as with an almost-all F-35 force for far less money. How many "first day of war" strikers do we really need? Once a sizable force of F-22s, backed by B-2s, decimates enemy IADS and fighters, non-stealthy, perfectly capable, non-stealthy fighters like the Viper and Eagle can fly around with impunity over formerly contested airspace. And besides, when far more stealthy, more enduring, longer ranged, more survivable, and far cheaper UCAVs start taking over in the early 2020s, the USAF will have substantially recapitalized with what will then have become an ostensibly obsolete fighter. Question is, anyone in Congress sufficiently informed to realize all this so that they can begin to chip away at the F-35's political armor - and gold - plating???

If the USAF wanted a combination of improved 4th gen and some 5th gen aircraft, your 500 F-22's plus F-15/16's above, they didn't tell anyone. Remember the original point of JSF was to be affordable and be the "new" F-16. Congress does not decide issues like this. The services and DOD decide what they need but Congress controls the money.

The USAF currently appears willing to wait for it's F-35A's and downplay any shortage in numbers of fighters. There is no talk about buying new F-16's. Unless there is a complete meltdown in the program the USAF is buying F-35A's whenever they are available.

In retrospect the USAF should never have had years go by with no fighter buys. It's also beyond obvious the flight test and production phase was far too concurrent (so says DOD and the USAF now) and the program is going to be delayed by years. Within this frame not buying even a modest number of fighters is difficult to defend. Whether this should have been the F-22 or new F-16's can be debated.

From my perspective if the USAF really believes in having 10 AEF then it needed to buy enough F-22's for 10 sqdn's. At this point we will have about 5 F-22 and F-15C (the 178 "golden") sqdn's till at least 2025. At some point we might get F-X and we might then see a real need for new air superiority fighters. However, it appears current assumptions are that the F-35 will replace these last "golden" air superiority F-15C's. It has not been demonstrated however the F-35 can do air dominance. If it can wonderful but then why did we bother with the F-22 in the first place? Have we even flown one past mach 1 at this point in the test program?

Because the USAF and USMC have bet the ranch on F-35 the status of the program is critical. More delays will mean they try to stretch out the service lives of existing aircraft. They can not "afford" to buy new 4th gen aircraft. Firstly, within their budgets buying these means buying less of something else- maybe F-35's. Secondly, if cheaper aircraft are good enough to purchase today then what justifies JSF? Indeed, one might observe that both the USMC and USAF have brought themselves to the brink in terms of tactical aviation by not buying new aircraft for a decade and thus have ensured they must have have and must get JSF.

That's how Washington works. Rational long term planning based on analysis of threats yielding force structure requirements it is not. It might appear to be a rational observation that since the lines are open that we can always buy more F-16 or F-15 aircraft but in political "reality" it's a non starter barring a national emergency.

lb wrote:

The USAF has not purchased an F-16 or F-15 in more than a decade. Sec Gates and Adm Mullen in testimony this month were very clear they did not support buying 4th gen fighters. The budget process is often seen in zero sum terms. Thus money for more F-16's would mean, or be seen to mean, less money for F-35. On a political level it's a non starter.

Certainly it was not responsible for the USAF to not purchase any new fighters in over a decade. In fact it was idiotic and irresponsible. At this point however if the USAF is willing to buy an F-16 Congress would rightly ask why they need more expensive F-35's if F-16's will do the job. If the answer is they are just gap fillers then you open a can of worms on buying more and delaying the F-35.

In a perfect world if you needed say 2,400 aircraft and they lasted 30 years then you would buy 80 aircraft every year (or less if they lasted longer). As the USN shipbuilding plan has shown the past two decades we do not live in that world.
This is exactly why the status of the F-35 is so critical- it's really F-35 or bust for the USAF and USMC.

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

lb wrote:

The USAF and USMC have bet everything on the F-35A and B and have no other real options on the table but keep on eye on the C.

Sure they do, the Viper lines are still open.......just sayin

The Corps has the same options the Navy does.

Quote:

Anyway, I also see the F-35C as you do, as the most vulnerable of the three variants. After someone evidently pretty high up in the Navy leaked a damning life-cycle cost estimate, it appears as if there are some influential folks in the Navy who are not particularly thrilled about the F-35C.

I would say its the second most vulnerable after the B. The Navy wants it dead and the Royal Navy goes with it because it has no other choice than to team with the RAF.

The USMC does not operate the F-18E/F. The Corp has thought a lot of tactical aviation and decided it required an all V/STOL force and will give up the medium attack/strike and EW roles. They do not want the E/F on multiple levels. The last new build AV-8B was produced in 1997. The Corp certainly does not have the same options as the USN unless they give up on V/STOL. This of course would be rather ironic given many view the F-35 as a V/STOL design first with derived CTOL versions. The USMC has completely bet the ranch on the F-35B to replace it's entire tactical aviation fleet with one aircraft. The USN current air plan is only 1/4 of it's sdqn's will be F-35C. The options of the two are not the "same".

Ouch. But lets put it in perspective - five years isn't that far off. I just hope it doesn't turn into a line of setbacks...

What we should have done is build more F-22's up front. Also, if the people that handle the money had allocated enough for armor and COIN ops in the two wars we are still fighting, EARLY enough, we would have probably been more effective and faster at handling Iraq and now Afghanistan. And that would have represented more money when we really needed it, to buy more F-22's, provide for more F-35 testing, and even helping out in the financial crisis.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

USAF IOC F-35A changed to Late CY 2015