JAST blast from the past

Today, along with some future posts, we will look at historical thinking and compare it against what we are now paying for with the F-35 program.

We will start out with the commentary in the PDF below.

"Yet our community has again embarked upon an expensive design and construction exercise focused on 'form,' which historically breeds powerful technology-business coalitions and political constituencies that become virtually unstoppable."

C.E. Myers, Jr.
November 1995

More misleading statements by LM on F-35 unit cost

It keeps coming up every now and then. The DOD F-35 project office even asked LockMart to stop public statements about F-35 unit costs that were insanely low that are now, at this juncture; fantasy.

He said labor costs were coming down faster on the F-35 program than any previous fighter jet program in over 40 years. Lockheed is on track to hit its target unit "flyaway" cost, excluding development, of $67 million in fiscal 2012 dollars by 2018, he added.

TR-2 hardware and Block 3 software has to actually work in a go-to-war configuration by that time.

Also, what is sad about this article is that a reporter that has been on the F-35 beat for a while, refuses to actively challenge such nonsense other than some occasional weak efforts. Not really reporting.

The alleged biggest buyer of the F-35, the USAF, has significant issues trying to afford the F-35. Note: R&D dollars not counted. It is doubtful that $67M will buy you even the roll-away price without a motor.

In the end, more evidence to log in the area of RICO statute and the Ponzi scheme Thana-marking fraud-like behavior associated with the marking of the Just So Farcical.

Dane F-35 problem is everyone's problem

The littlest and biggest Joint Strike Failure participants (or prisoners) have massive trouble with their fighter recapitalisation plan.

It appears faith and ignorance were not enough to carry the theory.

Denmark is finding out what happens when one believes a Ponzi scheme:

“Industry leaders had much higher expectations when we joined the JSF,” Villumsen said. “By 2009, the government was still talking about contracts for Danish firms potentially worth up to $4.5 billion. This hasn’t happened. The contracts that have emerged have been relatively small.

"The government", who, like others, used Lockheed Martin (and U.S. State Department) talking points as a substitute for hard analysis.

Don't pity the foolish. Yet, Denmark is only one of many in the same boat who now realize their mistake.

It would be funny if the behaviour wasn't so stupid. Betting on something that isn't even anywhere close to being a final go-to-war aircraft. Worse, betting on PowerPoint slides...as a defense plan.

The JSF senior faithful will still use Denmark as an example to others: don't be Denmark; who still have not ordered any aircraft. See them? That is what happens when you don't believe in what the U.S. says. The "U.S." when it comes to defense deals, being made up of a bought and paid for group of industry funded politicians.

Today, we do not know what the Danes next fighter aircraft will be. That has not been decided. The JSF memorandum of agreement does not demand a country actually buy jets. Also in a recent Danish requirement, slots for new aircraft have changed from 48 down to 30.

It is hard to expect industry pay-days for the rent-seeking class when Mr. 1763, the biggest alleged buyer of F-35s, the United States Air Force, is in huge trouble.

The fantasy plan everyone hoped for, a big part of it, was that when full rate production kicked in, USAF would buy 110 F-35s per year. That is a lot of industry "potential" for sure.

After figuring out that Operations: USELESS DIRT 1&2 had to be paid for, a serious deskilling of procurement professionals (a problem which existed before the wars), and of course the fallout from the 2004 F-35 weigth reduction event (STOVL weight attack team-SWAT) which fixed terrible design assumptions with more terrible design assumptions, cost and affordability hopes blew out.

In 2006, USAF readjusted their F-35 procurement plan so that when full-rate production did kick in, they were good for 30 less jets a year. 80 was the new full-rate F-35 committment for USAF. To make this work, instead of finishing all their procurement by 2028, they would push it out to 2037. This is, in effect, a cut on orders. That is pulling money for 30 jets per year when full-rate starts. That slows down all kinds of things including motor buys.

USAF gets less jets. Rent-seekers get less money per year.

It gets worse.

In 2008, the plans and programs people in USAF--these are the ones that tell the USAF what money is actually available every year to make ends meet--stated that realistically, when full rate production starts up, USAF can only afford 48 F-35s per year.

Those fantasy per-aircraft prices floated about by the Ponzi-zombies could only work if:

1.There was a working aircraft.
2.Thousands were bought on-schedule.

Without that, what the faithful have is...

...nothing.

Yet, for years, so many in government, defense, industry and media circles ignore the hard fact that the biggest cash cow for the F-35 program isn't good for the huge number of the buys needed for all this not to look like a fraud.

They pinned a large portion of hopes on a USAF procurement system that could not:

1.Buy simple air-refueling tankers until the third try
2.Flunked badly trying to buy replacement rescue helicopters.
3.10 years after a major COIN war started, was unable to field simple turbo-prop strike aircraft.
4.Failed at managing the F-22 initial operating capability by not having proper life-support gear on the jet. This was a known risk from many years ago.
5.Has little skill at fielding new fighter aircraft because, (besides the F-22) has not bought any new fighter aircraft in quantity for years.

There are other examples but that will do.

The F-35 program is composed of several performance assumptions (procurement, management, aircraft design) that are weak, poorly risk-assessed and now even those of the model airplane glue fume affected hobby-shop brigade can see the bleeding wounds.

Most of this was before the global financial crisis hit. Those using the GFC as a justification for weak F-35 buys do not know their history.

While the Danes may have problems with their fighter recapitalisation efforts, they have a good chance of recovery. The USAF on the other hand, the major tool for dishing out His righteous might, will be facing growing emerging threats with too many old aircraft.

It isn't just the Danes who were asleep at the wheel. And, with the Danes deciding that their replacement fighter will be an open process, some of them look like the smart people in the room when discussing the great F-35 dellusion.

JSF dollars then and now

What Boeing was thinking about their Joint Strike Fighter concept back in the early to mid 1990's. Source: Boeing.

The Boeing JSF unit flyaway costs meet the government target values for the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant-$28M, the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant-$30M-$35M, and the Carrier-based (CV) variant-$31M-$38M (CY94$).

Emphasis added.

What that means in today's dollars:

The Boeing JSF unit flyaway costs meet the government target values for the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant-$44M, the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant-$48M-$59M, and the Carrier-based (CV) variant-$31M-$38M (CY2012$).

That is an increase of 55.5 percent. And that would assume everything goes to the rosy plan back in the days of wild fantasy.

Norway's gamble

Not especially smart on F-35 program problems, Norway's State Secretary throws one out there for the sheep:

Ingrebrigtsen, however, downplays any concerns. "If you don’t want any problems, you should never buy an air fighter," he said, adding that this is a new project that is breaking barriers — and with that comes a critical eye among skeptics.

Norway, Defence-wide has problems making ends meet. Unit-readiness is a problem across the board.

Yet, they are willing to throw good money after bad in order to play in the greatest Defence Ponzi Scheme of all time.

$11B for 50-some jets.

That could buy and sustain a lot of Gripens; something that actually works and doesn't cost $35,500 per flying hour.

11 years after F-35 contract award, DOD issues a cry for help

The F-35 journey up to this point has been a fraud.

“It’s about $37 million for the CTOL aircraft, which is the air force variant.”
- Colonel Dwyer Dennis, U.S. JSF Program Office brief to Australian journalists, 2002-

All the PowerPoint slides; all the marketing hype, all the claims of being "affordable and sustainable."


(grossly misleading excerpt from 2007 Lockheed
Martin briefing to Israel)


All the misleading statements to the U.S. Congress and Foreign Parliaments.

Just a few days ago, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a cry for help.

After all those misleading statements for years, the U.S. Department of Defense office that manages the F-35 program, (known as the F-35 Joint Program Office or "JPO") does not know how to make the F-35 "affordable and sustainable". And, it would appear that the new F-35 JPO boss has little to no confidence in what Lockheed Martin has been telling the DOD all these years:

3. OBJECTIVES
The F-35 JPO has not yet determined the acquisition strategy for F-35 sustainment, including the competitive approach; solicitation, evaluation, and award methodology; contract vehicle; socio-economic considerations; scope or hardware/services; delivery schedule/period of performance; rough order of magnitude/budget; intended number of contract awards; or acquisition timeline. The F-35 JPO intends to use information provided in response to this RFI, in addition to other market research, to refine its acquisition strategy and to evaluate alternatives that will deliver the best value, long-term F-35 sustainment solution. This supports the broader F-35 JPO goals of increased affordability, transparency, predictability, and accountability for sustainment costs and performance.

What have these people been doing with our billions all these years?

Not much.

Over-optimism won't help Quickstep investors

Today's Australian Financial Review (AFR) has s special report Defence insert.

It has a piece of overly optimistic reporting on Quickstep and its industry hopes on the F-35.

It states that they hope for $700M over 20 years on F-35 work.

Yet in 2010 that was shown as "potential".




The article also implies that the U.S. is going to get 2400-some F-35s.

Given how the business plan has fallen down for the F-35, that many jets is a very big dream.

Poor investors getting mislead by a puff-piece article by an alleged leader in Australia on big-business finance "reporting".

I wonder where the rent-seekers will see their billions in F-35 work for Australia?

Mr. Clare's ignorance

“It leaves as a part and comes back as a plane — one of the most advanced fighter planes in the world,” Minister for Defence Material Jason Clare said.

Poor Mr. Clare is an ignorant fool. Not his own fault for the most part, but because of the poor and/or misleading advice he gets from the entrenched defence bureaucracy.

LOL.

The continuing saga of the most egregious example of a defence program Ponzi-scheme in human history.

The SME's are now facing a lot less work because of F-35 program management incompetence and a very large rent-seeking inspired group of government cheerleaders.

This from 2002:

The stealth aircraft was affordable because there were already so many, more than 3000, on the order books, said Air Marshal Houston.

From 2007:

For the production phase, the JSF Industrial Participation (IP) Plans negotiated for Australian industry with Lockheed Martin and the two JSF engine manufacturers, identify production opportunities valued at more than AUD$9 billion.

--Speech, The Hon. Bruce Billson, MP, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence--

Music to a rent-seeker's heart. Oh, and even though all partners were briefed on the advantage of plug-and-play two-engine choice for vendors, the U.S. shot that down because they had to cover red-ink in other areas of cost blow-outs.

Poor SMEs. "Now hiring" also means now firing.

RAAF fighter buy stuns US

10 years later. What do we have?

From October 2002.

More discover F-35 Ponzi Scheme

More industry players are waking up and discovering the F-35 Ponzi scheme.

“All we know is that there will be 50 airplane builds this year, and there were supposed to be 118 airplanes built this year,” Smith said. “The ramp-up just hasn’t been there. In terms of future employees, it's probably about 20 people that we won’t need but that we’ve been planning on. Until the business is up, nothing is for sure.”

There will be thousands built. It will be affordable. It is on PowerPoint, it must be true.

Business suffers. Employment suffers. Real people suffer.

Death by over-optimism, faith and listening to charlatans.

(2003 briefing)

I'm shocked that industry would be at risk since we had such top analysis down-under:

The decision to invest was bold and would carry the RAAF into the future, enabling it to dominate Australia's air and sea approaches, he said. The stealth aircraft was affordable because there were already so many, more than 3000, on the order books, said Air Marshal Houston.

--

-SME's face the truth about F-35 industry work (or lack of it)

-F-35 Production Cut Update

F-35 fantasy capability map

The F-35 is now allegedly valuable because it will provide coalition deterrence.

Like its predecessors, the F-15, 16 and 18, the JSF will help create a global network of security relationships and military capabilities that can help deter aggression. This is a valuable contribution to future U.S. security that must be factored into any discussion of the cost of this program.

Straws, grasping and all that. Par for the course from the source. Interesting how affordability has been cleared from the table.

U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) all the live-long-day (off-sets, and foreign aid courtesy of the U.S. tax-payer).

The lengthening shadow of China’s military buildup made it imperative for Japan to acquire the best fighter it could. In the near future, it is possible, indeed likely, that countries such as India, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia will acquire some version of the F-35.

FMS being doable because, well, we are done with all the preliminary test and development by now. No? Well, we should have been.

Interesting as President Clinton promised Israel this.

I am surprised that the bought and paid-for cheerleaders are shooting so low. After all, this is what was thought of in 2007 in regard to F-35 FMS.

What I find really interesting is this (also from 2007). Even though the F-35 program has significant development problems, program officials still think an old FMS schedule from 5 years ago (with only a little delay mind-you) is possible.

Mistake-jet dementia.

UPDATE--New Parliament report on the F-35 and the NACC's mystery "cost envelop"

Australia's NACC hasn't done much except cheerlead for a defective fighter program. (PDF here)

In March 2012, the head of the NACC project, Air Vice-Marshal Kym Osley, assured a Parliamentary committee that despite a recent ‘US decision to defer 179 US aircraft over the next six years’ (effectively increasing the cost of Australia’s 14 aircraft), project AIR 6000 remained ‘within the cost envelope’ originally approved by Government.

The ‘cost envelope’ was set by the Government in 2009 but the figure has not been revealed.

However, when you are in that kind of plush job, you just want the endless junkets.

Then there is the "it's classified" meme:

It is difficult to assess these claims, because some of the arguments are of a highly technical nature and much of the data necessary to form an understanding of the performance of the JSF is classified and not available for public scrutiny. As journalist Andrew McLaughlin points out:
The question of whether the F-35 will have sufficient capability in order to be relevant against forthcoming Russian and Chinese systems is not easy to determine without access to classified test data to analyse…Analysis from such groups as Air Power Australia claim that the F-35 will not have the range, power to weight ratio, manoeuvrability, and weapons load to be able to engage these adversaries on a one to one basis. They also claim that the JSF’s very low observability characteristics will soon be compromised by Russian low-frequency radar systems or infra-red trackers currently under development for ground based SAM systems…But these are claims which are not easily countered without revealing classified data.

Define "journalist".

Andrew now no longer works for Australian Aviation; an excellent aviation publication and trade press effort that isn't journalism like a traditional news organisation. At least one past interview I saw from Andrew in AA with Lockheed's F-35 front-man Tom Burbage, was totally softball. Trade press can only go so far.

Andrew is now senior PR for the NACC.

Good work if you can get it.

More later on the quality of Parliament's F-35 report.

UPDATE--

The report ends with:

"It is difficult to imagine that the United States will not see the
program through to completion and that Australia will not purchase significant numbers of the JSF."

Faith-based assumptions with little hard fact to back it up is a faulty play. Even more so with taxpayers money.

Parliament can now go back to sleep. Duty done.

LM tells investors that the government is causing more trouble with the F-35

There are different ways of looking at the F-35 problem.

Low rate initial production batch 3 (aka"LRIP-3") work should have been completed by December of 2011. Yet, deliveries of the 17 LRIP-3 jets have only recently started.

Real pilot training is delayed again until "sometime" in 2013; years late. Here is what then F-35 JSF DOD project boss General Davis told Eglin AFB in 2008:

---

---

(click images to enlarge)

Today; less than 4 years later. Over-optimism doesn't even apply with that margin of error.

Currently, General Davis is on to better office furnishings.

Carrier quals for the C model are delayed yet again. Recent delays for that were to push it to the summer of 2013. Now? "Early 2014".

LM tells its investors everything could be nicer but the nasty old government is causing more problems (not the incompetent program management, no sir).

Better investor communications are needed given the difference in what F-35 program management officials think (or fantasize) to what is really going on.

Skytalk has an update about a recent LM profit call and the F-35 as told to investors.

Lockheed officials told Wall Street analysts Tuesday that they now expect to make about $500 million less profit on the F-35 program over the next five years because the Pentagon brass have tightened the standards for what they consider acceptable progress.

Bruce Tanner, Lockheed's chief financial officer, said the company was "disappointed" with the government's grading standards for making award fees, essentially bonuses, when certain goals were met in the development program and with the award fees that would be available to win. The award fees are pure profit, a reward on top of the thin cost-plus development contract margins.

Read the whole thing for the bigger picture.

DOD official on the road, misleading valuable allies

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is on the road helping Lockmart sell defective mistake jets.

He spins this fairy tale for Japan:

“It’s the linchpin of tactical aircraft inventories for the United States for decades to come, so we’re completely committed to it.”

Interesting, as it is unlikely to take on Pacific anti-access threats. That and no one knows what it will cost or how many we can afford to field.

The biggest alleged customer of the F-35, the USAF, certainly has worry.

Carter continues perpetuating the Ponzi-scheme.

“I wouldn’t have told you this three years ago, but I can tell you now: I think it’s getting on the path to finishing its development [and] ramping up to full-rate production.”

Add him to the witness list when the lawyers start eating this program alive.

The rest of the article explains how dumb it is to be a JSF Partner Nation member mooching for "best value" while off-sets are handed out to FMS customers.

Keeping interest in a zombie defense program

I suppose one could comment on this latest edition to the story of taxpayer theft by trick or device but if anyone cares, just compare it to some of this material.

For some entertainment value, take a look at these October 1998 JSF assumptions that helped convince Congress to hand over the money for this Ponzi scheme.

Game-fraud sim generates interest to the clueless

In another effort of irresponsible copy-paste reporting we have this from The Canberra Times wooing over what is not much more than an F-35 game simulator.

The effort of this simulator has no other purpose than to generate interest in the cause to the gullible.

The test-pilot (of whom he and his peer group now have a post-flight checklist that includes quotes from a press-release) is not in a representative F-35 environment.

The F-35 depends on a sensor display helmet which at this time is faulty and worse, a major key performance perimeter (KPP) of the program.

The game-fraud simulator also doesn't have the known thermal issues with the aircraft, faulty equipment like the integrated power-pack (IPP) or a mountain of operational software issues to get over.

It always wins.

Funny too is this over the Super Hornet. Well, well. If it is so great, why do we even need the Just So Failed?

Enjoy the irresponsible hype.

You paid for it.

Revolvers

Here is an interesting opinion by two loyal Americans on how the F-35 is a good thing. Not much of it is accurate when compared to what we know so far, but it got some space in a news outlet. The best thing to quote is at the end:

Retired Gen. John D.W. Corley served as the U.S. Air Force vice chief of staff, commander of Air Combat Command and senior uniformed acquisition official. Retired Gen. William R. Looney III commanded the U.S. Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command and the service’s Aeronautical and Electronics Systems Centers. Both are consultants to Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35.

Leon Panetta's alternate F-35 reality

I wonder how the Senate Armed Services Committee would feel about the U.S. DOD boss Panetta going around telling fairy tales about F-35 progress?

For example, today, Panetta is happy to say to Italy that the F-35B just came off 'probation' due to progress.

The SASC wasn't convinced.

Panetta's canned talking points about the U.S. being "committed" to the F-35 program aren't credible.

This gives him the appearance of being an empty-suit when instead he should be showing concern about the hurt this program is putting on everyone. He is acting like a seller of the aircraft.

Useless.

Lies

Maj-Gen Thompson said many of the JSF's problems published in the media were normal for a brand new strike fighter project.

Pathetic attempt at a diversion General.

Why don't we question all of the people that came up with this?

Maj-Gen Thompson said that if serious problems were uncovered during the development phase then the fighter's capability might need to be reduced, rather than expose customers to long delays.

This is already happening.It is not news to some of us that knew this already.

The usual

I wonder how U.K. law deals with fraud.

The parts and components for the 3,000-strong fleet of F-35 jets are to be built by a number of different companies across Britain before the planes are assembled in the United States and begin to be delivered in 2015.