His thoughts on F-35 affordability and numbers the service intends to have go like this:
“If we can’t clearly identify how much this airplane will cost to buy and to fly after we acquire it, then we really have no idea how many airplanes we can afford or how many we should expect to receive.”
High-level thinking!
On F-35 production he had this to say:
“Our manufacturing process, our assembly line, is not up to speed and running to the level we’d hope it would be at this point in time.”
As a gauge of progress, we already know that F-35 low-rate-initial-production batch 3 (aka LRIP-3) is behind schedule by several months. The customers have just received their first of 17 LRIP-3 jets. The LRIP-3 contract was supposed to be complete in December of 2011. LRIP-4 is to be complete in March of 2013; not that far off. LRIP's 1,2, and 3 are around $1B over-cost.
Also, what is being delivered needs numerous kinds of fixes and re-enginnering (the mistake-jet syndrome) because such little testing has happened. 5-and-a-half years after first flight and there is still a very limited flight envelop: no real weapons system testing and no credible pilot training efforts.
What were they thinking in 2003? Ponzi scheme? Rico Statute? Theft by-trick-or-device? Congress believed it hook, line and sinker. Woe to us.
That, along with other challenges (such as fielding an obsolete-to-the-threat F-35) are what faces General Welsh.
USAF's alleged need for 1763 F-35s can't be taken seriously.
Welsh also took a big swipe at the out-going USAF leadership on the issues of Air National Guard force structure planning and relations.
Welcome to the top office boss. You will have your work cut out for you. Best you re-read LeMay and Rickover after evening prayers.
10 comments:
You've taken the production line comment out of context. He was referring to delays to LRIP jets, which delay the productioin line ramp up.
By taking that one point out of context, you also misconstrued your initial quote, which originally came after the discussion of the manufacturing process.
Perhaps reading the source material would avoid this type of lazy journalism.
The "a total indifference to what is real" that has been the hallmark of the JSF Program has been all pervasive.
For example, the JSF Program Schedule in 2006 had LRIP 3 production completed by the end of CY2010 - even earlier dates for completion were prescribed in the earlier versions of the Master Schedule.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-03.html
The naivity of those who are still drinking the JSF Kool Aid is epitomised in the comment by one of the various 'Anonymous' posters on the Blog above - July 20, 2012 10:45 AM.
Sounds a lot like what a certain Mr Jack Warner(a.k.a. jackjack, jack412)would say, don't you think?
With LRIPs now pushed from 6 to.... 9...to 10... to 11? Full-rate is a long way off.
If ever.
Production skilling doesn't happen in a vacuum.
LRIP production is not skilled up because they don't know what they don't know with so little testing knowledge of what makes a full go to war jet.
To show how off the mark everything is, back in the day, 2012 was to mark the time when the major players (those who wanted hundreds of F-35s) would declare IOC.
Today, IOC is a great unknown.
Amazing project management incompetence.
BTW, I do not practice "journalism" . I practice opinion. Just like your opinion. Good to bring up "journalism" though because it seems many that have that responsibility are falling short when reporting on the Just So Failed.
And the Out-going boss has done his job. Mission complete.
Sustain the Program just long enough on an irreversible track, so then fingers can be pointed around at other reasons when the Program is massively slashed and cost per unit nearly doubles the original estimate.
So all bases and careers are covered, it would seem. Nice defense acquisition process and recap strat. Only in America...
To Anon first post... please note there is and was no such thing as 'delayed LRIP' production jets... there was only UNSUSTAINABLE LRIP schedules, flawed business models and seemingly deceptive advertisements from Program inception.
Once the 'all-or-bust' JSF crusader types comprehend this, it will help avoid similar catastrophic defense acquisition implosions and critical capability gaps in the future.
If you want to get technical, opinion is a type of journalism. It doesn't require objectivity, but it still requires accuracy, particularly when referencing exisiting reports and resources.
Don't get me wrong, the program is a wreck. But you're criticising the wrong aspects. Criticise the broken stealth paint, or the cost model, or the over-reliance on a single platform to provide for the future of air combat. But schedule is silly, because from the beginning they planned to overshoot it.
Throw a rock in defence (or defense) and you'll hit a project that was and/or is poorly managed. Capability Development Group built a schedule buffer into the F-35 acquisition for that very reason, and that schedule buffer still has not been breached. Our buffer was in turn based on a USN buffer for the same program.
Anon (July 20, 2012 11:58 AM), your argument makes absolutely no sense. I bet you're an F-111 fan.
Of course there is such a thing as delayed LRIP jets. Australia pushed ours right out of the existing LRIP schedule, and other partners have delayed in a similar fashion. Such delays mean the production line is not working at full capacity, as reflected in the new USAF bosses comments.
And, refer to the NACC "So What?" briefing.
Great example of trying to justify the existence of a parasite organisation.
Yup. Heard a lot about that buffer...so very important when pushing the fast-jet organisation into oblivion after several misleading statements.
Quote:Anon 4.01 pm
"opinion is a type of journalism"
" I bet you're an F-111 fan. "
And the rest is nonsense as well.
Who mentioned the F111?
The Project is fatally flawed, ie that is if understand project management and risk assesment.
Cobber I would give up while you are behind?
AD/Bonza/sycophants again?
@ Anonymus.
Yeah yeah..... I heard the whining many times before. Bad bad politicians are responsible for underfunding the military programs and because of that military program get prematurely ended.
I throw it in your face that this is as far as the US is concerned a blatant lie. A quick review of the programs in the last three decades show that the majority of the programs got actually most if not all of the originaly earmarked funding. The fact that programs were showing considerable fewer units at the end was caused by development costs blowing out and the production costs getting higher than planned for. With a stable funding this means that higher development costs and higher production costs directly translates into fewer units.
That this coukld go on was because in the DoD and in the Defense Industry the notion of unlimited funds provided by someone else got common place. Who cares about a blow out here or there. Money will flow.
Most other nations that cannot borrow unlimited without consequences got the notion of limited funds and need to be much more prudent with their funds. Yet many of them manage to do quite well. Oeps..... sorry.... the US found out that lowering taxes and increasing expenses does reach a limit. We just ran into it.
So cut the crap about politicians underfunding programs. So far all the pet programs have gotten the promised funding. Pet programs turned out to be too expensive.
To Aussie Anon, this is Anon 11:58.
The LRIP argument being made vis-a-vis LRIP not being delayed... allow me to clarify:
The argument was simply bringing attention to the fact that such original LRIP schedules were never sustainable or realistic in the first place!
Hence, since original schedules (and cost estimates) were in truth simply not realistic and were flat out unsustainable from inception, then it technically can't be a 'delay', as said originally assumed schedules were never going to be doable!
Same applies for FRP procurement... Those will be 'delayed' too! And substantially delayed by a long-shot at that.
Well, not exactly 'delayed' per se, as they will never be able to be implemented to schedule (or cost) as currently still assumed and expected, as FRP estimates are not sustainable or realistic to begin with.
Post a Comment