Forum: F-35 Lightning II

"Lockheed’s F-35 Costs Rose 64% Over Decade in ‘Rich Man’s World’"
Bloomberg / Gopal Ratnam and Tony Capaccio - Nov 3, 2011

Two former USAF generals and a pentagon weapons buyer assign cost increases to the Marine's lobbying efforts and design issues with the STOVL version.

".... focus on cost was lost early along the way," said retired Air Force General George Muellner, who managed the early stages of the JSF’s concept development.

The goal of producing the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff and vertical-landing, or STOVL, model -- the most complex configuration -- was “supposed to be several years behind” the Air Force’s simpler, lighter model, said Muellner, a former Vietnam combat pilot who worked at Boeing for 10 years after leaving the Air Force and retired in 2008. Instead, after the Marines lobbied to have their model go first, the Pentagon in 2003 asked Lockheed to begin work on that jet. It also sought more software capabilities in earlier versions of the plane than originally planned, Muellner said.

That meant more people working at Lockheed’s plant, “increasing the burn rate per day” and stacking technical and program risks on “top of each other.”

Retired Air Force General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, who was the service’s chief when the program began, said creating a Marine Corps version cost a lot, for little gained.

“A lot of design compromises were made especially to give the Marine Corps the STOVL capability which, by the way, they’ve never used in combat,” he said. “And who says the Marines need a fast jet in combat?” said McPeak, now chairman of Ethicspoint Inc., a consulting firm in Lake Oswego, Oregon."

“After two-plus years designing a plane, building staff, and reaching a spend rate of $300 million a month, going back and doing remedial work on STOVL was extremely punitive to the program,” said John Young, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer in the Bush administration. That, he said, “eliminated any hope of developing three planes for the cost of one.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/201 ... orld-.html

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum readers here have read this all before on this primarily USAF forum. Sad really to see these old USAF geezers bitchin'. Razz

Really rather remarkable, Spaz. These "old USAF geezers" actually were real fighter pilots. They actually really did make 4-star general. They really did make life and death decisions affecting the lives of Americans, and affecting billions of dollars of taxpayer money. They actually were involved in the genesis and development of the JSF program. Yet for some reason you are so much more knowledgeable about this program than they are. Why is that?

Last edited by spazsinbad on Nov 10, 2011 - 10:29 PM; edited 1 time in total

Meteor, remarkable that you are claiming some expertise for my goodself that I myself am not claiming or have never claimed. My claim is that we have seen this all before on this forum. And yes my sense of humour sometimes gets the better of me. So what?

Political posturing for the budget deliberations. Nothing more. And 'real fighter pilots' know they don't get a pass when they take public shots at the other services' stuff.

Weight was the issue -- STOVL happens to be the most sensitive to weight. However, had there been no weight reduction effort the CTOL and CV variants would be nowhere close to their performance targets. And, the STOVL jets aren't getting any software any earlier than the other variants; the Marines are simply satisfied to declare IOC with Block 2B jets while the USAF and the USN are waiting for Block 3.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Former Generals Blame F-35 Costs on Marines / STOVL Version