Has JSF reached that stage? We don't know, and that is unacceptable. The users and the taxpayers, need an IOC date, IOC capabilities and some real cost numbers. If that's too much to ask after 11 years, it's time for someone to get fired.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Does a troubled project costing tens of billions need an IOC date?
Bill Sweetman has an interesting editorial which shows that 11 years on in the F-35 program, we don't have much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Or its time to tell Lockheed that its not getting anymore money. If they have a problem with that, they can get the thing working in two or three years for an open fly off for priced out production ready aircraft that can go into combat immediately.
Id say that maybe the airforce should go to the drawing board, but they have proven too incapable for that. It wont be perdect, but its time for a good enough market solution, at least to get us through the next decade.
I know this is drastic, but if legacy fighters have no room for improvement then how will airforce fight in 2030, with at least half of its tac air consisting of legacy fighters?
By the own gloomly logic that states that only the F-35 can compete in tomorrows wars, the F-35 will be obsolete by the time we have enough for them to make any difference.
Did you catch this Eric?
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130129/DEFREG01/301290007/U-K-Group-Releases-Global-Defense-Sector-Corruption-Index?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
It made me puke. So much money spent(stolen/diverted)in the West and so little kit delivered since 2000.
Bill Sweetman is right. Once again.
There could very well arguably need to be someone fired as an example and to gain some credibility within the institution. Furthermore, perhaps also a Congressional investigation to include previous Program execs and Program acquisition decision makers could be justified.
It wouldn't hurt to gain more credibility and transparency in the future of Major weapon system acquisition strategies planning.
So why not establish the new normal and battle cry now, using the F-35 as the lead dog. No more promotions or golden parachutes until someone is fired?
@Will Leach: Not giving them money will ensure all the money spent to date is wasted, because progress will be even less, leading to more frustration and more cuts, and so on until abandonment. Cost and schedule blowouts are so large, it is not a matter of holding back profits to whip them into shape; it will ruin the company (total bankruptcy)if they are forced to deliver on their own dime. This approach only has a purpose if money is being wasted somehow and management needs motivation to mind the store. Currently, there are so many managers demanding so many reports on so little progress; the reporting is now part of the waste. Face it, this project was too ambitious for the resources available, and the only way to get anything now for the expense is to hold your nose and accept mediocrity. I also suggest you lower expectations below the USAF capability we had 10 years ago and get with the program: "spend more to get less". It's too big to fail. The USAF is on the road to being an exclusive flying club, like all third world air forces. The trend was established when the cold war relic (sic) F-22 production was stopped early. If the F-35 is not cheap enough to reconstitute the force, it has failed to achieve its most important requirement, regardless of its performance level. That F-35B will be some great airshow treat though, won’t it? I love it in CGI scenes in movies too. That’s entertainment.
Amicus Curiae
Anon,
Too big to fail is a buzzword more often than it us a logic.
Plausible estimates suggest that the lifetime cost of the F-35 will easily exceed $1 trillion. So far we have spent about $50 billion, in all likely hood no more than 5% of our planned investment. Are you really saying that we cant cut a 5% loss to save 95% of what would in all probability be a bad investment? The vast majoroty of these things arent built yet, you do know that right? By 2030, if not later, there is every likelihood that the at least half of the tac air fleet will be legacy fighters, and chances are they will do the heavy lifting in terms of munitions carried and sorty rates should the USAF be put to the test in that time. That means that we are going to be relying on legacy fighters for a long time, so theres no reason that we cant use those designs to buy time for alternatives, and thats not even counting dollars likely to be saved. After the legacy fighter fleet is retired, any investments in the F-35 will take up the vast majoroty of opportunitt cost for decades, decades in which this plane might not be able to guarantee air superiority. Are you really saying that wasting one decade of development and $50 billion we must commit to decades of declining air power and risk upwards of $950 billion on a bad investment? Huh.
If you really want to defend this program thats fine, but dont just throw up your hands and say its too late, end of discussion. The US government, and its military, are first and foremost responsible to upholding the US Constitution. Second to that, thier second priority is to common defense. When exactly did the welfare of a private for profit company exceed those priorities? If LM wants defense dollars, then they are free to earn them. As I said earlier, they should be free to compete, even with a (very near) combat ready F-35 If they can build one in time, for the fly off based contract that would come after the abandonment of the F-35 in its current form. Such a competition might not yeild a credible long term solution, in which case the most affordable of any "good enough" i(the dreaded enemy of the "perfect") short term option will be produced. Could you or anyone else please tell me why we should use for profit private defense contractors if we are not going to take advantage of the benefits of a market system? If we are going to subvert national defense to a socialist jobs program, then why not return to an arsenal system?
Another thing I would like to know is if the F-35 has advanced the state of the art at all, or made any R and D contributions at all, then why cant at least some of our technological investment be used in a new design or in upgrades to an existing design? The only way cancelling the F-35 would be a total waste is if it already IS a waste. Otherwise at least some of its technology could be put to other uses. If not, at best its a pretty linear and short sighted "investment." This is where Stealth Uber Alles really falls short. We don't get the advantagea of evolutionary design and we cant apply any advancements accross multiple platforms, we cant heavily repurpose or modify, we can't
multiiply investment returns, we cant afford to make other important investments, and we just cant afford it.
To demonstrate just how immature the F-35 is, the present pilot training syllabus calls for only 6 flights, whereas, the earlier syllabus called for approximately 53 flights (for less experienced pilots). So the pilots coming out of training now are really just getting a few “familiarization flights”, severely limited by what little the jet has been cleared to do. Their training diplomas should read something like “By virtue of completion of the F-35 pilot training course, ____________, is certified to accomplish joy rides in this aircraft”. I’ve read multiple pilots’ comments that the jet “just about flies itself”. If it’s so easy to fly, why not delay training (all three services) and operations (Marines) until the jet actually has some semblance of war fighting capability to train with and use? Oh! I remember now……It’s so the services can say to Congress “Don’t cut our program. We’re already using the jet”. And it looks like we taxpayers will be funding these joy rides for years.
Here's the latest F135 engine deal with P&W. Note that the total adds up to an average cost of 35M+/engine
JRL
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_04_2013_p0-544261.xml
Post a Comment