More Delays for the Joint Strike Fighter Program

[Kyler]

A Shocking And Unexpected Development
by Bill Sweetman


Defense Secretary Bob Gates will be told in a meeting today that development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be further delayed, on top of the 13-month slippage that was disclosed in March.

According to Pentagon critic Winslow Wheeler, corroborated by Bloomberg and the New York Times, the USAF/international F-35A and Navy F-35C will be delayed another 12 months and the Marine's F-35B - still suspended from powered-lift flight and reeling from last months' bail-out by the UK - will be two to three years late. It's not clear whether that refers to the completion of development testing or to the initial operational capability (IOC) date.

The operations and support costs for the F-35 will be re-budgeted as 1.5 times the aircraft it replaces, more than twice what was originally hoped for and 50 percent more than the most recent projections.

The changes are apparently the result of the Technical Baseline Review that the JSF Project Office launched in April, headed by new program manager Adm Dave Venlet and his new management team and supported by experienced personnel from Navair and Air Force Materiel Command.

The need for more time to mature the aircraft's complex software is a big driver, although the longer delay to the F-35B points to flight-sciences or mechanical challenges with the powered-lift system. (At the International Powered Lift Conference last month in Philadelphia, engineers confirmed, for example, that a new driveshaft was still in the design stage.)

The direct financial impact is expected to be a $5 billion increase in research and development costs (currently budgeted at around $50 billion in then-year dollars). However, the damage to the program as a whole will be much greater and much of it is beyond the control of the JPO, the Department of Defense or even Congress.

The delays are almost certain to affect the ramp-up of production. As with the delay announced earlier this year, the added R&D costs are likely to be paid for by cutting US low-rate initial production (LRIP) orders, increasing the prices of those aircraft. Combined with delays in IOC dates, this will accelerate the pace at which international partners are moving their deliveries to the right.

The new Congress, meanwhile, may take action to prevent the delays from increasing the concurrency in the program. Under today's production schedule, a one-year slip in completing development testing means that 150-plus more aircraft will be fully contracted for before DT is completed (the LRIP-8 batch, due to go on contract in early 2014) and 200-plus more before operational testing is done.

Customers will also have to figure out how many aircraft they can afford to operate, with basically flat budgets suggesting that total force requirements will have to be reduced by one-third. This will put at risk the 200-plus annual production rates on which the program's projections of low average procurement unit costs have been based. For the USAF, this could mean other extra costs to extend the life of older fighters.

Finally, the entire management structure and culture of the Pentagon's largest project, up to the highest levels, will come under scrutiny. The Pentagon's Joint Estimating Team reported that the program was in trouble in September 2008, but was pooh-poohed by the JPO, Lockheed Martin and senior Pentagon leaders, including deputy defense secretary Gordon England and then acquisition chief John Young. In its second report, in November 2009, the JET warned of a 30-month delay - but that conclusion was watered down, once again, after the JPO and Lockheed Martin promised better performance.

Now it seems that the JET had it right more than two years ago. How many billions would have been saved if Gates had acted on those recommendations?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Anyone want to know why Gates is retiring, you just have to understand the DoD's awful appropriations system. The biggest losers in this new delay are going to be the USN and Marine Corps. It is looking more likely that the F-35B will be dropped since its operating costs, range, payload, and costs problems are far exceeding its brothers the A & C models. The USN is probably now going to have to buy more F/A-18E/F/G's to fill the fighter gap since the JSF has been delayed again.

For anyone not familar with the Joint Strike Frighter program was begun under President Clinton to replace the USAF, USN, Marine's F-16&18's, A-10's, and AV-8B's. It is currently by far the largest defense program in the DoD and one of the largest defense programs in the history of the country. So far is has been one delay after another. Our tax dollars hard at work.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The USN is probably now going to have to buy more F/A-18E/F/G's to fill the fighter gap since the JSF has been delayed again.

Why? The Super Hornets and the Growlers only operate on full-size carriers. The F-35B was only going to replace the USMCs Harrier IIs on the Tarawa, Wasp, and America-class Amphibious Assault Ships. The only other planes the Marines have are the Hornet units on the carriers, in which case you wouldn't give those units the STOVL version anyway since the F-35C outperforms it in every way possible (with the exception of stealth most every CATOBAR plane does as well), at the worst you'll see the USN aviation units get the CATOBAR version and they'll give the USMC units on the carriers their F/A-18Fs.

[Jim Raynor]

An all-STOVL fighter fleet is one of the things that the Marines have been pushing for. Which has caused disputes with the Navy, since those F-35Bs would complicate operations onboard their supercarriers (assuming they keep those joint operations going). The navy doesn't want all those F-35Bs, but the Marines have insisted that it'll work.

[Siege]

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this proves the straw that causes the Netherlands to bail on the F-35. The current government is trying to drastically cut back spending on pretty much everything, and the program to find a replacement for the F-16 fleet is likely one of the few items they and the left agree could do with some trimming -- especially since the pricetag of the damned airplane can't seem to stop growing.

Of course even if we did bail I very much doubt it would have an impact on the program (we intend to buy 50-80 aircraft)...

[Jim Raynor]

especially since the pricetag of the damned airplane can't seem to stop growing.

Just how much is the F-35 now? There's so much bullshit out there I can't sort it out.

[TimothyC]

especially since the pricetag of the damned airplane can't seem to stop growing.

Just how much is the F-35 now? There's so much bullshit out there I can't sort it out.

I haven't seen the latest figures, but somewhere in the 110-135 million USD range per airframe.

Edit: The other factor is this: There is only one other 5th Gen Fighter than has reached the level of development the F-35 has hit, and it too suffered from massive cost increases in the systems integration stage. If this is the case for all of the 5th Gen aircraft, then backing out of the F-35 program would just delay the inevitable costs when the move to a 5th Gen airframe.

[Skgoa]

Erm, no. Once the technology is mature and ubiquitous, its going to be much easier - and thus cheaper - to do. (At least they can wait until most bugs are found and buy it then.) And the two american Gen5 projects have (had) the added difficulty of an "we want it to do this laundry list of additional things, too" mindset.

[Siege]

The other factor is this: There is only one other 5th Gen Fighter than has reached the level of development the F-35 has hit, and it too suffered from massive cost increases in the systems integration stage. If this is the case for all of the 5th Gen aircraft, then backing out of the F-35 program would just delay the inevitable costs when the move to a 5th Gen airframe.

Whilst that is true if one assumes we need to buy such a plane presto-presto with no time to lose, a lot of people over here are unsure if we really need bleeding edge 5th generation super-planes in the first place. And they have a point. I get that the F-35 is a fantastic aircraft that outstrips the Eurofigther, Rafale, Gripen et al, I really do... But the only thing we're in all likelihood going to be doing with these planes is fly recon missions over areas where allied forces have long since established air superiority or drop bombs on Abu Nowhere, Bumfuckistan. We're not going to fight the Neo-Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap, or the aircraft carrier armada of Red China -- and in the unlikely case that we are, 50 F-35s instead of Gripens probably won't make or break the outcome.

I get that one has to plan for the conflict of the future, but I genuinely don't see what kind of conflict we need to or indeed can realistically prepare to fight in the next twenty years that isn't some form of peace enforcement in the third world, where a much cheaper aircraft of lesser capabilities will do just fine. If some cataclysmic war should appear on the horizon, chances are our contribution to it will be minimal regardless of what plane we buy, because we won't be able to afford enough of them to make a difference either way. So why not stick with a cheaper plane that does what we expect to need?

It's places like Britain or the USA, nations which regularly go to distant places to bomb the shit out of them, that need 5th generation aircraft stat. I daresay that we, on the other hand, could stick with 4.5th generation planes by virtue of our air force being a largely irrelevant second-line thing in the big scheme of things no matter what we do.

[Kyler]

The USN is probably now going to have to buy more F/A-18E/F/G's to fill the fighter gap since the JSF has been delayed again.

Why? The Super Hornets and the Growlers only operate on full-size carriers. The F-35B was only going to replace the USMCs Harrier IIs on the Tarawa, Wasp, and America-class Amphibious Assault Ships. The only other planes the Marines have are the Hornet units on the carriers, in which case you wouldn't give those units the STOVL version anyway since the F-35C outperforms it in every way possible (with the exception of stealth most every CATOBAR plane does as well), at the worst you'll see the USN aviation units get the CATOBAR version and they'll give the USMC units on the carriers their F/A-18Fs.

The fighter gaps deals nothing with the Marine Corps, it deals that Navy is still fielding a fleet of Hornets that are getting very old and will so have to retired because they see the end of their service lives. When the USN starts retiring these old 4th Gen aircraft and when the F-35C starting coming in there will be gap around 175 aircraft. Some have proposed buying more Rhino's, but the Navy currently doesn't really want to purchase aircraft it really doesn't need down the road. With another delay with the JSF, it may need to by more aircraft. You'll be sure Boeing won't be complaining.

One huge issue that the Marine Corps seems to have forgotten about until recently was the lift nozzle for the F-35B. When adjusted downwards at full reheat the engine will put out soo much thermal energy that it will melt the deck of a AAS or CVN in 30 seconds. The only thing the Marine's so far can think is to add cooling lines to deck which will only help a little. This problem will be very expensive to correct, implement, and maintain on the Navy's ships. The V-22 Osprey as a similar problem when it lands vertically.

The USAF was also planning on buying some F-35B's but has never given an exact figure. Though the F-35B is currently getting more difficult to protect since it is the aircraft that has seen the biggest delays. The MoD in Britain recently changed their future order JSF from the B to the C type for their Queen Elizabeth carriers. The RAF/RN were huge supporters of the B type, now with the Brits gone and the B seeing another 3 year delay, it may be very likely the Marine won't be able to save it from the chopping block.

[Vehrec]

Erm, no. Once the technology is mature and ubiquitous, its going to be much easier - and thus cheaper - to do. (At least they can wait until most bugs are found and buy it then.) And the two american Gen5 projects have (had) the added difficulty of an "we want it to do this laundry list of additional things, too" mindset.

How the hell is the technology supposed to mature if it doesn't get built/tested/developed? How will it become ubiquitous without making more of them? How is 'Do all these things' any different than what the US military ever does with one of their development programs?

[Siege]

How the hell is the technology supposed to mature if it doesn't get built/tested/developed? How will it become ubiquitous without making more of them? How is 'Do all these things' any different than what the US military ever does with one of their development programs?

Er, Skgoa's reply was to TimothyC's, who was talking about the "inevitable" costs involved in the purchase of 5th-gen aircraft. But they're only inevitable for a nation like the USA, which is fully committed to the JSF project, doesn't have a fallback option, and therefore has to sit it out regardless of any further increases in aircraft cost. The same isn't true for the Netherlands (the "they" in the bit you quoted): it doesn't really matter if we buy the F-35 (and all the technology involved) or not because it will be developed, tested and matured no matter what we do. And the F-35 will be ubiquitous no matter what we do too, because the maximum number of aircraft we'll buy is 85 (and I doubt we'll ever actually buy that number even if we end up sticking with the program) which isn't exactly spectacular considering 3,100 F-35s are planned to be acquired in total. Which I imagine was the point Skgoa was making.

[TimothyC]

Erm, no. Once the technology is mature and ubiquitous, its going to be much easier - and thus cheaper - to do. (At least they can wait until most bugs are found and buy it then.) And the two american Gen5 projects have (had) the added difficulty of an "we want it to do this laundry list of additional things, too" mindset.

Wrong. Systems integration is a bitch of the highest order, and while the processes for doing it get better every time, the integration itself doesn't. No one else in the world has even come close to fielding their first 5th gen airframe, and the US is looking at it's second. I sincerely doubt that the unit cost for the aircraft is going to go down over time.

Siege - you raise good points. I'm going to continue to be an F-35 booster for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that if you buy it, you get new airframes (as opposed to older airframes with the current Dutch F-16s), and you get commonality with the US and the UK going forward. This means if Dutch forces are deployed in theatre with US forces, they can run off of the same supply stocks. Hopefully this buys your further geopolitical pull with the US.

[Sea Skimmer]

The F-35 has been a process of designing three completely different airframes out of a single original aircraft that was supposed to be 70% common. Divide all the increased R&D costs and delays by three and its not so bad looking… but we can’t change reality to match. Without air superiority military defeat is pretty well assured at this point, its not something one should casually ignore. Fighters bought in the next ten years will last across the next forty years. No one can predict the threats in that time period, that is the same as the gap from the start of WW2 to 1979. Biplanes in front line service to Space Shuttle Enterprise.

Now sure you could wait, but fighters sure as hell wont get cheaper in the future, except that the US dollar is likely to get weaker! UCAVs wont change this, much indicates that UCAVs are going to cost more not less then manned fighters, but in exchange they do things no manned fighter ever could like fly 40 hour missions. Anyway if the Eurofighter or Rafael had any really serious plans for future upgrades to bring them up to well, current specs, they’d be fine enough replacements for an F-35 but this is seeming more and more unlikely. Typhoon costs are about the same or even more expensive then an F-35 anyway.

One huge issue that the Marine Corps seems to have forgotten about until recently was the lift nozzle for the F-35B. When adjusted downwards at full reheat the engine will put out soo much thermal energy that it will melt the deck of a AAS or CVN in 30 seconds. The only thing the Marine's so far can think is to add cooling lines to deck which will only help a little. This problem will be very expensive to correct, implement, and maintain on the Navy's ships. The V-22 Osprey as a similar problem when it lands vertically.

Yeah I always wondered about that one, I suspect the solution may come in the form of a water deluge system. Otherwise the only thing I can think of that would really work is a several inch thick concrete paved flight deck section, or else a big area covered in ceramic tiles across the deck center of motion for absurdly more money.

The USAF was also planning on buying some F-35B's but has never given an exact figure. Though the F-35B is currently getting more difficult to protect since it is the aircraft that has seen the biggest delays. The MoD in Britain recently changed their future order JSF from the B to the C type for their Queen Elizabeth carriers. The RAF/RN were huge supporters of the B type, now with the Brits gone and the B seeing another 3 year delay, it may be very likely the Marine won't be able to save it from the chopping block.

Yes I agree, the loss of the British political connection is going to leave the F-35B in big trouble. It’s the plane that compromised the program all along and the weakest in overall capabilities. The Marines have no replacement though and it really ties into US Navy plans for Sea Basing for the Army and Marines. So the aircraft is still going to retain broad support, but it may die anyway. Frankly I’d also consider killing the F-35A and simply making carrier and slightly simplified non carrier capable versions of the F-35C as the only type. I’m sure every combo of is being studied right now. We can only hold out hope that this is a slip of full operating capability, which involves thousands of weapons test sorties, and not 2-3 years further slip in IOC.

[Phantasee]

Why is delay of full operating capability preferable to a slip of the IOC?

[Thanas]

Siege - you raise good points. I'm going to continue to be an F-35 booster for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that if you buy it, you get new airframes (as opposed to older airframes with the current Dutch F-16s), and you get commonality with the US and the UK going forward. This means if Dutch forces are deployed in theatre with US forces, they can run off of the same supply stocks. Hopefully this buys your further geopolitical pull with the US.

OTOH, this small bonus is more than outweighed by being completely dependant on the US for spares etc. They might prefer buying - if they buy anything - a European aircraft where they got much more relative power than with regards to the US. Also, the Dutch might not be interested playing bombtrucks against whatever nation America wants to bomb next.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why is delay of full operating capability preferable to a slip of the IOC?

Because a lot of the weapons required to be certified for a full operating capability aren’t completely vital. The plane could do an awful lot with just AMRAAM, JDAMs and JASSM. No full accounting of all the electronics features exist, but the USAF is pretty rational in what it demands for IOC vs. full operating capability.

IOC is the date at which we have the plane available in a combat ready form at all, without that we can’t properly train pilots and form operational squadrons which becomes its own enormous problem and delay. That means we aren't leaning how to use the jet and solving its operational problems. We also cannot use the thing in combat at all should WW3 break out that day. The very idea of what full operating capability means is going to keep changing anyway. The USAF has been self banned from making changes to the specifications, but that ban expires this year as I recall, meaning that then new features like a twin internal AMRAAM launcher can be added to the program.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Got a link for that twin AMRAAM launcher skimmer?

[TC27]

Im glad the UK is out of the F35B - it was a bizzarre choice to retain VSTOL capability if were were bulding a 65k ton carrier and the RAF is unlikely to be having to operate from rough German airstrips anytime soon

[TimothyC]

OTOH, this small bonus is more than outweighed by being completely dependent on the US for spares etc. They might prefer buying - if they buy anything - a European aircraft where they got much more relative power than with regards to the US. Also, the Dutch might not be interested playing bombtrucks against whatever nation America wants to bomb next.

True. The flip-side of that is that they are going to not have a 5th gen fighter before 2025, and even then they are going to have to rely on either the US, China, or Russia/India for parts.

[Shroom Man 777]

But like Siege said, they might not need them either way and because they're not going to have any foreseeable crisises in the future, they do not have as great a need for a 5th gen fighter as a more adventurous power (or a power with more "interesting" neighbors/situations/whatever) like the USA/China/Russia/India. It's not a make or break deal for them, compared to America or the UK or whoever whose militaries have to blow people up.

[TimothyC]

But like Siege said, they might not need them either way and because they're not going to have any foreseeable crisises in the future, they do not have as great a need for a 5th gen fighter as a more adventurous power (or a power with more "interesting" neighbors/situations/whatever) like the USA/China/Russia/India. It's not a make or break deal for them, compared to America or the UK or whoever whose militaries have to blow people up.

That gets into the question whether or not they field a manned fighter in the post 2025 environment at all. Any new 4.5+ gen fighter (Like Typhoons, Rafales ect.) is going to cost as much as a 5th gen fighter, and those F-16s are not going to last forever. Yes the Dutch have to make that decision, but just as Stas tends to push Russian hardware, I push American.

[Shroom Man 777]

How can lower-tech 4.5 gen fighters cost as much as a 5th gen fighter? If that's the case, why are those other guys bothering with new F-15 and F-16 variants when they can just buy a JSF (assuming these countries can buy them)?

[Siege]

Whether or not we want manned fighters is a good question, which unfortunately doesn't seem to get asked by our politicos -- the existence of a manned airforce that can shoot things is taken for granted. I'm not entirely convinced that's wise; it's going to be extremely expensive the replace the F-16 fleet, our MoD is strapped for cash as it is, and we might very well be better off doing what New Zealand did: get rid of the expensive fighters, focus the air force on SAR/air transport, and spend the money we save on the army and navy instead. In other words, use the funds we have for things we're actually good at and can make a difference with, instead of maintaining a massively pricey but really tiny air force that will never be used to its full ability anyway.

[phongn]

How can lower-tech 4.5 gen fighters cost as much as a 5th gen fighter? If that's the case, why are those other guys bothering with new F-15 and F-16 variants when they can just buy a JSF (assuming these countries can buy them)?

Small buys and updated avionics.

[Kyler]

Frankly I’d also consider killing the F-35A and simply making carrier and slightly simplified non carrier capable versions of the F-35C as the only type. I’m sure every combo of is being studied right now. We can only hold out hope that this is a slip of full operating capability, which involves thousands of weapons test sorties, and not 2-3 years further slip in IOC.

That is not really a bad idea, though you know the USAF won't go for it all. Personally I think the B has to go. I know the Marines are stuck on STOVL, but many countries are abandoning that idea. While the Harrier II+ /Mk. 9 have proven to be a great ground pounder, their lack of range & payload has always hindered their use in some respects. While there are short falls with losing a STOVL aircraft, Afghanistan conflict has shown that long range aircraft have been much more valuable in supporting ground forces. The B-1B is still being used for ground support mission overseas cause of its long loiter time and large payload. No one thought going into that conflict an aircraft designed as a strategic bomber would end as the best close support aircraft for ground forces. That is another reason why the RAF is retiring their Harrier sooner cause the Tornados have proven more useful with their longer range and more diverse payload capabilities than the Harriers.

The development of UCAV is something definitely to watch for in the near future. In time, UCAV will be able to perform flight maneuvers that any Top Gun pilot could only dream of. An aircraft with no pilot is not limited by the 9g limit that a human can endure before blacking out. While current UAV's have proven nearly as expensive as manned aircraft, I believe this is mostly because UCAV technology is in its infancy. As the technology matures I believe these systems prices will lower by a considerable amount.

Currently 4.5 gen aircraft like the F-16E/F $80 mil, F-15E/F/S/K models $80-100 mil, F/A-18E/F/G $60-70 mil, Su-30 $30-45 mil, MiG-35 ?$40-70mil?

Fth Gen aircraf, F-22 $150-180mil, Eurofighter $100 mil, Rafale $60-80 mill, Gripen $40-60 mil (Not NG Model, Cost???)
F-35 $128 mil per most recent GAO estimate, Su PAK-FA ???

So if you have a non-stealth 5 gen aircraft that cost are very comparable to 4.5 gen aircraft.