Forum: General F-35 Forum

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-16 took 16 years...

Yeah, and have you noticed how Cold-War-era programs demanded absolute urgency in their execution? Cold-War-era conditions demanded that fighter planes be delivered faster than ASAP (i.e., we need it yesterday). But how about the post-Cold-War era? Think Rafale, Typhoon, Raptor, and now, the F-35. I suppose that it’s only natural, really, that the post-Cold-War era has largely lost that sense of urgency in comparison. Something that perhaps we should keep in mind.

And greetings, HaveVoid. I agree with your observations, especially your last sentence. Financially impairing Lockheed’s ability to carry out continued development does absolutely nothing to hasten IOC, but merely delays it further. If DOD finds that Lockheed is lacking motivation to perform, it can always threaten cancellation of Lockheed’s participation. Of course, one small caveat is that DOD had better have a clearly superior alternative available, because bluffing is obviously NOT an option in this particular case.

Is there even a shred of evidence that DOD believes that a viable alternative exists? Well, if DOD ever abandons Lockheed, I’ll be convinced that such an alternative indeed exists. Or perhaps if the folks whose national survival absolutely depends on continued air dominance in the future decide to abandon the F-35, I’ll be persuaded that a viable alternative does exist indeed. Please keep in mind that those folks are utterly resourceful, completely ruthless, and extremely imaginative. If anyone can possibly make an alternative work, they are the ones who can make it happen. After all, they have zero margin for error. Until either event materializes, however, color me dubious, please.

F-16.net Sponsor

geogen wrote:

Excellent Post HV, with the one debatable exception of your very last sentence there. To the contrary, one could legitimately argue imho that 'fencing in' the Program, whether it was 2-3 years ago or tomorrow, would absolutely benefit national defense interests in forcing a more sustainable and viable, alternative recapitalization strategy in the near and medium-term. That is, if one is looking at this Program and assessing it as simply being incapable and unsustainable of fulfilling requirements going forward, then yes, an urgent and decisive national security alternative plan should be evaluated. (regardless of which manufacturer is 'favored', or regardless of any joint-venture project).

Very good points, Geo. I was writing from the perspective that the USAF/USMC have taken that the F-35 is "the only option" that will be considered. If you are unwilling to take anything other than the F-35, then hobbling your ability to acquire said F-35 only hurts you in the long run.

Was it premature to cease production of 4th Gen assets for the USAF and USMC at the beginning of the past decade, perhaps. However, at the time, no one saw how the strategy of F-35 replacing everything was anything less than rational. In this fiscal situation that we find ourselves in as a Nation and DOD, the services realize that any F-16 or F-15E purchased will likely be deducted from the overall F-35 buy, as Congress is gonna look at it and go "well you got your new fighter, no?". It smacks of the end of Strike Eagle production to protect the F-22, and the USMC spurning of the Super Hornet to protect the V-22's funding.

The time to have pursued a somewhat different course with regards to F-35 development was much, much earlier. We placed our bets on the F-35's ability to be delivered on time, at price, and at an advertised level of capability. We bet poorly, but that isn't to say that the program is without merit going forward.

HV

An amended IOC amendment Amendment Amen...

Proposal Directs Pentagon to Give Battle-Ready Dates May. 9, 2012 By MARCUS WEISGERBER

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... /305090009

"The U.S. House Armed Services Committee approved legislation that directs the Pentagon to provide battle-ready dates for all versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by the end of the year.

The panel adopted an amendment to the 2013 defense authorization bill that requires the Defense Department to provide the so-called initial operational capability (IOC) dates and reports that detail what constitutes meeting those milestones.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the committee’s ranking member, introduced the legislation as an alternate to a similar amendment drafted by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo.,...

...International purchases help drive down the price of each jet.

Using 2012 dollar values, the Pentagon projects the Air Force version of the F-35, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers, to cost $78.7 million. The carrier version’s is projected to cost $87 million, and the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff, vertical-landing version, $106 million.

The IOC dates for the F-35 have been pushed back numerous times throughout the plane’s development. In 2011, DoD officials projected the Marine Corps jet reaching IOC in 2014 or 2015 and the Air Force and Navy aircraft after 2018.

The individual service chiefs will determine the specific IOC dates, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program manager told reporters after a May 8 Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing.

“The formal definition of IOC has more of a formality to it than it does the actual presence of aircraft with capabilities and squadrons that are trained and ready for deployment,” Venlet said.

The service chiefs are waiting to receive the F-35 “test and evaluation master plan,” which will outline the initial operational test and evaluation schedule. Venlet is supposed to deliver that document this fall...."

Quote:

The F-16 took 16 years to go from Program start (1972) to multi-role IOC (F-16C in 1988). The F-35 will take from 13 to 17 years (2002 to service IOC) depending on when the USMC & USAF declares IOC.

That depends on your definition of multirole. We were flying night interdiction training missions and pulling Victor Alert with A models at Aviano (with Torrejon jets) in 1984. The 50 TFW at Hahn was doing it earlier. The F-35 hasn't dropped a bomb or fired a missile yet.

retchief70 wrote:

The F-35 hasn't dropped a bomb or fired a missile yet.

It has. You need to update your anti-F-35 slogan collection.

I'm not anti F-35. I'm anti rewrite Viper history.

When did the F-35 drop a bomb or fire a missile?

Quote:

The individual service chiefs will determine the specific IOC dates,

Does anyone have a mini-checklist of what are the primary predecessor items that affect the IOC date?

archeman wrote:

Quote:

The individual service chiefs will determine the specific IOC dates,

Does anyone have a mini-checklist of what are the primary predecessor items that affect the IOC date?

The service chiefs just want to,see,the good progress,made,over the last year sustained,for,just a bit longer.. they want that warm fuzzy feeling

Pentagon Expects Initial OT&E Plan For F-35 By Fall (DEFENSE DAILY 10 MAY 12) ... Mike McCarthy

http://www.hrana.org/news.asp#PentagonExpectsInitialOTE

"The Pentagon's acquisition office for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter expects to complete a plan and timeframe for conducting initial operational testing and evaluation (OT&E) of the stealth fighter jet by this fall, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the program manager, said this week.

Fully capable F-35s are expected to be ready by 2017 under the Block 3 version of the Lockheed Martin-built airplane, but it would be up to the service chiefs to declare when the plane will achieve initial operational capability (IOC), Venlet said.

"The formal definition of IOC has more of a formality to it than it does the actual presence of aircraft with capabilities," he said.

Venlet, speaking to reporters after Senate testimony on Tuesday, said he has been instructed by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall to produce plan for initial OT&E by September...."

retchief70 wrote:

Quote:

The F-16 took 16 years to go from Program start (1972) to multi-role IOC (F-16C in 1988). The F-35 will take from 13 to 17 years (2002 to service IOC) depending on when the USMC & USAF declares IOC.

That depends on your definition of multirole. We were flying night interdiction training missions and pulling Victor Alert with A models at Aviano (with Torrejon jets) in 1984. The 50 TFW at Hahn was doing it earlier. The F-35 hasn't dropped a bomb or fired a missile yet.

I have to concur with retchief on this one, and well said... don't rewrite the F-16 history! If one is going to use the 1972 FY-16 date, then go back to X-35 dates for apples to apples. Hence, it's arguably more relevant to go with the order to start building FSD F-16s (test jets) back in 1975 (delivered in late 1976) as a start date.

Sure, F-16C block 25 (with multi-role APG-68 capabilities) entered production in 1984, but as retchief noted... mature, 'fixed' and highly operational F-16s (as innovative and easy to upgrade as they were) were already conducting multi-role capable missions by 1984.

I guess that was more my point with respect to not bring the F-16 into debate with regard to current F-35 development and cost issues.

Simply... let's debate the F-35 where debates are justified... but hands off the F-16. It was operational and kicking (after the initial mistake jets were fixed) within a very short time after being given orders to build production jets!

Respects.

twintwinsingle wrote:

Spudman, correct, I did not include projects that got cancelled, so no I didn't include the A-12. However, good point, that was a total failure. The F-18 in my comment referred to the F-18 A-D (I seperated the E/F). Unless you count the YF-17 as a previous fighter, and I don't, it was a clean sheet design...no comonality with the YF.

That's a mistake on your part. The F/A-18 was nothing more than a navalized YF-17 with a few developmental changes added to the mix. Northrop was even the prime on the land-based version of the F/A-18. The Super Hornet was a development of the F/A-18 so again you're not working with a "clean sheet" design. The YF-17 itself had a very lengthy development cycle as it started as an in-house design going back to before the P.530 Cobra.

geogen wrote:

It was operational and kicking (after the initial mistake jets were fixed) within a very short time after being given orders to build production jets!

Respects.

Very easy to do when you don't ask much of it. The original F-16 was barely more than a day fighter. It had no BVR, no LANTIRN type system, no ability to self-designate. With the F-35 they're asking for one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated sensor suite right out of the gate. That's on top of stealth, internal weapons carriage, a STOVL version, and a carrier version. There really is NO jet that has ever been in service that would be an apples-to-apples comparison.

sferrin wrote:

geogen wrote:

It was operational and kicking (after the initial mistake jets were fixed) within a very short time after being given orders to build production jets!

Respects.

Very easy to do when you don't ask much of it. The original F-16 was barely more than a day fighter. It had no BVR, no LANTIRN type system, no ability to self-designate. With the F-35 they're asking for one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated sensor suite right out of the gate. That's on top of stealth, internal weapons carriage, a STOVL version, and a carrier version. There really is NO jet that has ever been in service that would be an apples-to-apples comparison.

Well said.

You summed it [Link pending approval] Succinctly

sferrin wrote:

geogen wrote:

It was operational and kicking (after the initial mistake jets were fixed) within a very short time after being given orders to build production jets!

Respects.

Very easy to do when you don't ask much of it. The original F-16 was barely more than a day fighter. It had no BVR, no LANTIRN type system, no ability to self-designate. With the F-35 they're asking for one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated sensor suite right out of the gate. That's on top of stealth, internal weapons carriage, a STOVL version, and a carrier version. There really is NO jet that has ever been in service that would be an apples-to-apples comparison.

SFerrin, the difficulty of designing and fielding the F-35 is exactly my point. It is ambitious, perhaps the most ambitious fighter project in history. The point is, LM either had absolutely no idea how long it would take and how much it would cost to do it OR they knew and low-balled the bid in order to be declared the winner...twice...on consecutive major fighter projects. The F-16A was a day fighter, but that's what the contract required and that's what GD delivered. The F-4 was a fleet interceptor for the USN and a strike fighter for the USAF...that's what the contract required and that's what was delivered. In all business, not just aerospace, the most important part of a bid on a contract is the accuracy of that bid. Can your company accurately predict how much it will cost and how long it will take to deliver a product? If you can do that and also deliver a quality product, even if your bid is a bit higher, you will get return business. If you can't you start to lose customers quickly. If you got bids for an addition to your house and the guy you went with said it would take 3 months and cost $50000 and he took 9 months and cost $150000, that would be unacceptable. You wouldn't care that you had asked for him to use a kind of granite he hadn't used before or solar powered lights or whatever...you would expect him to have taken that into account when he bid the project. The point is not that no airplane has been fielded with the F-35's capabilities, the point is that LM has done an absolutely terrible job, on two consecutive major fighter programs, of predicting their timeline and unit costs. Period. That is what the MO contingent is arguing and they are correct in doing so.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

IOC or else