Forum: Program and politics

More cost growth would cut F-35 buy: Air Force
Reuters

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Any further cost increase or problems with the $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would mean reduced Pentagon purchases of the new warplane, being developed and built by Lockheed Martin Corp, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Donley said the latest restructuring of the program should allow the F-35 to continue with the "least risk."

But he said the Pentagon's F-35 program office and Lockheed had been told there was "no more money to put against contract overruns or problems."

"To the extent that there continue to be cost growth or challenges ... We'll have to take down the number of aircraft that we have planned in procurement to pay for that work because no more money is going to be migrating into this program," Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/poli ... 3619.story

F-16.net Sponsor

Fix the price already...the only alternative is the F-22 or Silent Eagle, and we need the numbers the F-35 may bring to the table.

The only way to "fix the price" is for the DoD to stop screwing around with the buy quantities.

How can LM be expected to hold to a bid price when you cut the order in half?

How can the DoD commit to the program if the total cost of development is still unknown? LM has already fallen behind its contracted schedule, the fault lies with them, not the DoD.

It's called a cost+plus contract for a reason. Whey you are developing so much new hardware & software and taking the multirole fighter to a whole new plateau, there is no way of accurately estimating the exact time and money involved. That's way it's call an estimate.

The DoD slowdown of procurement is completely it's (the government as a whole) own fault. They knew going into the program that there was going to be a large investment in concurrency cost. Now that it has come time to pay those costs, they are getting a mixture of cold feet and mandated cuts that are forcing the issue. However, there are major unintended consequences involved in pushing back LRIP production, namely partner nations now having to pay a lot more for late year LRIP production. This in turn causes a lot of grumbling in their press communities, which may cause them to delay LRIP buys, and so on and so on as the cycle continues.

It's time for the US to get off our asses and lead for a change.

I agree that the DoD has to eat its lumps. The DoD asked for the moon, cheap, sensors, and stealth, in 10 years!, and now they've gotten what they've asked for. But, I disagree with your assessment about the requirements for the DoD. First, Lockheed is equally at fault for over-promising to the DoD. Second, someone has to pay for the plane's development issues to be ironed out. Right now, there isn't going to be a learning curve because the plans for the plane are not complete. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to spend a large amount of money building "mistake jets" which will have to be scrapped or substantially refurbished, because the learning curve for production will be minimal.

The shifting back of LRIP is a necessary consequence of the JSF program having fallen into development hell. Everybody has to deal with it. LM's going to loose a lot of money. The USAF will have a marginal combat fleet in 10 years. (By the time the double digit SAMs are being replaced with triple digit SAMs, the first F-35s will be entering service...) [clearly that is an exaggeration, but only of degree. 10 years gives enough time for the next paradigm in air defense to be developed] I think that roughly balances out, right?

Everybody is in a boatload of trouble now. They are reaping the whirlwind. Lockheed promised the world to everyone, and now is trying to catch up. The DoD doesn't want to pay the costs for its mistaken faith in defense contractors. If it weren't so important, it would be rather ironically amusing.

To cut costs, I think you could see the B/C cut in favor of an upgraded Super Hornet.

God no... dev costs are sunk and the F-18 will cost more to achieve the same result as a F-35.

arkadyrenko wrote:

The shifting back of LRIP is a necessary consequence of the JSF program having fallen into development hell. Everybody has to deal with it. LM's going to loose a lot of money. The USAF will have a marginal combat fleet in 10 years. (By the time the double digit SAMs are being replaced with triple digit SAMs, the first F-35s will be entering service...) [clearly that is an exaggeration, but only of degree. 10 years gives enough time for the next paradigm in air defense to be developed] I think that roughly balances out, right?

There's no SAM coming online in the next decade that's going to balance out the reduced RCS of the F-35. The most sophisticated threat will be some variant of the S-400.

Isn't it remarkable that Russian systems will benefit from advances in technology and become vastly more capable in a surprisingly short timeframe. The F-35, on the other hand, will apparently remain static and not benefit from upgrades and enhancements.

The F-35 will remain roughly static over the next decade, because the primary elements of its design have already been laid in stone. The F-35s aerodynamics, propulsion, and stealth shaping will not change dramatically in the next decade, for one big reason. The plane is still in development, even if LM is working on follow on variants, which it probably is, LM won't be able to work on those variants until the basic F-35 works.

Next, about technological development. Ten years is a sizable amount of time, if the US began the JSF program today, as opposed to 10 years ago, the JSF would probably have several notable upgrades. Likewise, if the US begins a fighter program in the next five years, that plane will have sizable upgrades relative to the JSF. The inexorable march of progress dictates that.

With respect to the Russians and Chinese, what I see in the next ten years is the development of different schemes to defeating stealth aircraft. Bistatic radar, for example, is under current investigation by a bunch of countries; but those two nations could be the first ones to deploy that radar in the air defense role. Or, they could try and create new forms of longer wavelength radar, which all small fighters are more vulnerable to, and connect that to their SAM network. Or, they could utilize their variant of the DAS, coupled with ultra-stealthy high altitude drones, to form an IR based early warning system. The stealthy drones could be deployed forward, so that they can catch the rear of the incoming strike force.

Clearly, no single technological development will invalidate the F-35's stealth, but the accumulation of smaller tactical and technological steps can reduce the advantages of stealth. Perhaps so much so, that by the time the F-35 is ready for operations, it is not a 'special' airframe but instead the bare minimum, sort of the basic F-16 over the Warsaw Pact. Capable, but nothing to write home about. (Oddly enough, if that is the case, the JSF program is entirely justified, but the USAF will need to start building a new fighter/bomber ASAP)

bjr1028 wrote:

To cut costs, I think you could see the B/C cut in favor of an upgraded Super Hornet.

That is Plan B - unofficially. Continue to purchase new and update existing Super Hornets, while starting development of a new long(er) range strike platform - like the F/A-XX - immediately. The Marines would lose LHA based fixed-wing aviation when the Harriers time out, but they can always embark (Super) Hornets on a real carrier, and operate from airfields and FOBs as they do now.

The F-35 program is far from static. Work on Blk4 has already begun and is due to complete 2017. Every 2 years after that is a new Blk upgrade with planned hardware refreshes coming in Blk4, 6, 8 etc.

10 years from now Blk5 will likely be operational with Blk6 coming out of ITO&E. In case you were wondering what is planned for those blocks, check the pic below.

Not only will the F-35 continue to grow in capability, but so will it's weapon systems. A new motor is already on the way for AMRAAM as is likely a better seeker.

Spudman, those upgrades will be effective, but they do not address the possible technological evolutions that I described.

Boosting electronic attack functions may help against Bistatic radar, but it won't help against IR based early warning systems. Likewise IRST will help against ultra stealthy high altitude UAVs, but it may still be insufficient, especially if those UAVs have low signature engines.

The only key upgrade would be the range improvements and propulsion improvements, but those probably will be at best in the advanced planning stage come the end of the present decade.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Spudman, those upgrades will be effective, but they do not address the possible technological evolutions that I described.

Boosting electronic attack functions may help against Bistatic radar, but it won't help against IR based early warning systems. Likewise IRST will help against ultra stealthy high altitude UAVs, but it may still be insufficient, especially if those UAVs have low signature engines.

The only key upgrade would be the range improvements and propulsion improvements, but those probably will be at best in the advanced planning stage come the end of the present decade.

Just how many sensors is the hypothetical foe going to be fielding, and at what cost? Efforts have been underway since the advent of radar, and radar cross section reduction, to find more effective ways of detecting targets. There's nothing coming along in the next decade that will be revolutionary in detection technology.

Forum: Program and politics

USAF: More cost growth would cut F-35 buy