F-35 Suffers Overruns, GEN Fired, LockMart to pay $614 mil

[MKSheppard]

Who Could Have Predicted this? NOBODY!

Gates Tries to Get F-35 Program Back on Course
by Christopher Drew
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
provided by

The Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be the program that broke the mold, proof that the Pentagon could build something affordable, dependable and without much drama.

But rather than being the Chevrolet of the skies, as it was once billed, the fighter plane, also called the F-35, has turned into the Pentagon’s biggest budget-buster. And with worries growing that the rise in costs could overwhelm other programs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired the general in charge this week and said he would withhold $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin.

The decision was an embarrassment for Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest military contractor, which could eventually draw at least a quarter of its sales from the F-35. But Pentagon officials said they wanted to make sure they avoided the kind of death spiral that had caused so many other weapons programs to collapse.

The Air Force, the Navy and the Marines are planning to buy more than 2,400 of the planes. But any delays could force them to spend billions of dollars on less advanced fighters to avoid a shortfall. That, in turn, would reduce their orders for the F-35, driving up the price for each plane and forcing them to cut orders further.

The main problem, some analysts say, is that even with recent improvements in acquisition practices, the military persists in buying new weapons systems before all the kinks are worked out.

At the Pentagon’s behest, Lockheed Martin has already started building production models of the F-35, even though only 2 percent of the flight test program has been completed. “Unless they convert the program to a fly-before-you-buy approach, they will continue to have pain,” said Winslow T. Wheeler, an analyst for the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

But Pentagon officials said that given the rapid changes in technology, they could not afford to take such a gradual approach without systems becoming outdated before they rolled off the line. Lockheed Martin executives said that they had gotten the message about picking up the pace, and that they believed they would be able to start delivering the planes faster than the government now projects.

“They have been very clear that they intend to hold us to more aggressive standards, and we intend to perform to those,” Daniel J. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin’s project managers, told reporters on Tuesday.

Mr. Crowley acknowledged that the program, which has been adjusted several times, was running six months behind the latest schedule. But he said that after building the first few planes, the company had been able to sharply reduce how much time and money each one required. And that has given it more confidence that it can get back on track.

Mr. Gates also said on Monday that he knew of “no insurmountable problems, technological or otherwise, with the F-35.” But he added a year to the development phase of the program, and slowed plans to increase production, to give the company a chance to catch up.

Still, that solution is basically a gamble that the company will do better. The program, which is by far the Pentagon’s largest, is expected to cost nearly $300 billion if all of the 2,456 planes are purchased in the next 25 years. Eight allied nations have also invested in the program and could buy hundreds of additional planes.

Some senators sounded skeptical in questioning Mr. Gates at a hearing on Tuesday. “I’m still concerned about whether the services will get the J.S.F. when they need them,” said Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, referring to the plane.

Other senators criticized Mr. Gates, who promoted the coming of the F-35 as a reason to kill the more costly F-22 fighter program last summer, for not having a handle on the problems sooner.

Many of the concerns were outlined in a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008. Mr. Gates said at the hearing on Tuesday that he did not recall that report. He said he had intervened now to try to head off the dire projections in a similar assessment completed in the fall.

That study found that the development of the plane could be delayed by two and a half years and cost an extra $16.6 billion if no changes were made. Mr. Gates has also said that he replaced the head of the program, Maj. Gen. David R. Heinz of the Marine Corps, to show that officials would be held accountable “when things go wrong.”

When the Pentagon began thinking about the F-35 in the mid-1990s, the Pentagon was building the F-22, the world’s stealthiest fighter, for aerial dogfights, and it expected to buy 650 to 750 of them. The F-35, which also has stealth features to avoid radar, was meant to focus more on attacking ground targets. Creating three versions with a similar core — one each for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines — was supposed to make it more affordable.

But while delays and overruns pushed the cost of the F-22 so high that only 187 are being built, the projected costs of the F-35 program have also risen to $298.8 billion from an early estimate of about $200 billion.

Counting all the development costs, each F-35 is now projected to cost about $122 million compared with about $350 million for each F-22. Another concern is that additional problems often appear in flight testing. And a recent Navy study concluded that the F-35 could be significantly more expensive to operate than older fighters.

But Mr. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin’s top managers on the project, said the company had greatly reduced the parts shortages that delayed the first planes. He said the company was talking to the Pentagon about adding another plane to the flight test program, and it was much closer to finishing sensitive systems, like the software that operates the plane and its sensors, than it was at a similar stage on the F-22.

He added that it was “our intent to outperform” projections for the program, enabling the government to buy more planes than it expected to over the next few years.

Other industry officials said they had heard that Mr. Gates was likely to name Vice Adm. David J. Venlet, commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, to succeed General Heinz in overseeing the program. And given that Mr. Gates has had to backtrack from his praise for the program, he now has even more on the line in holding it together.

---------------------------------------------

Awwww....Didn't I and others predict this when the F-22 was fighting for it's life? Why yes, we did.

[Sam Or I]

Should have stuck with the F-22. It was already in production, and even if it did cost more than an F-15 to maintain, it could replace 3 to 4 of them.

[starfury]

Should have stuck with the F-22. It was already in production, and even if it did cost more than an F-15 to maintain, it could replace 3 to 4 of them.

Well the F-35 was never meant intially I think to compete with the F-22/F15 it was to be the F-16/F-18 to the F-22/F-15, I think it intended to replace a bunch of aircraft, while the F-22 was to merely slot into the F-15 role fairly directly, The F-22 Spearhead and F-35 Swarm.

[Guardsman Bass]

Awwww....Didn't I and others predict this when the F-22 was fighting for it's life? Why yes, we did.

Yeah, but the F-22 was only air superiority and missile interception, if I recall correctly. Even if we'd ordered a thousand of them (and we probably should have), we still be stuck in this boat trying to make the F-35 fighter-of-all-trades work well and cheap.

[Jim Raynor]

Awwww....Didn't I and others predict this when the F-22 was fighting for it's life? Why yes, we did.

Yeah, but the F-22 was only air superiority and missile interception, if I recall correctly. Even if we'd ordered a thousand of them (and we probably should have), we still be stuck in this boat trying to make the F-35 fighter-of-all-trades work well and cheap.

The F-22 can drop 1,000 lb JDAMs, small diameter bombs, and guided cluster bombs while supercruising at Mach 1.5+. It works fine for air-to-ground, even if it's expensive and not optimized for it. The F-35 in its clean configuration (the configuration that it should be fighting in, because otherwise its stealth is compromised) can drop the same number of air-to-ground weapons. The difference is that those two weapons can be up to the 2,000 lb. class instead of 1,000 lb, or they could be guided standoff weapons (JSOW or JASSM). It bears to mention that the most common weapon dropped in Afghanistan is the 500 lb. JDAM, and that you don't need standoff weapons to handle insurgents (so all that crap about the F-22 not being suited to today's wars while the F-35 is is exaggerated).

The plan was always to have a mix of F-22s and F-35s, but because F-22 production was prematurely capped at such a tiny number, the US and its allies are now FAR more dependent on the F-35 working out and delivering on time. I've read that 186 Raptors comes out to only about 100 aircraft that are deployed and actually ready to fight at a given time. That's almost down to a squadron per continent, with no ability to replace losses. The US Military (not just Air Force) will nearly be an all F-35 force. They basically put all of their eggs in one basket.

[K. A. Pital]

F-22 could work ATG. And much better than F-35 anyhow.

[Simon_Jester]

The F-22 can drop 1,000 lb JDAMs, small diameter bombs, and guided cluster bombs while supercruising at Mach 1.5+. It works fine for air-to-ground, even if it's expensive and not optimized for it. The F-35 in its clean configuration (the configuration that it should be fighting in, because otherwise its stealth is compromised) can drop the same number of air-to-ground weapons. The difference is that those two weapons can be up to the 2,000 lb. class instead of 1,000 lb, or they could be guided standoff weapons (JSOW or JASSM). It bears to mention that the most common weapon dropped in Afghanistan is the 500 lb. JDAM, and that you don't need standoff weapons to handle insurgents (so all that crap about the F-22 not being suited to today's wars while the F-35 is is exaggerated).

Jim, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there's one thing that just bugs me:

In one sentence you talk about how the F-35 needs to fly clean to avoid compromising its stealth. Two sentences later, you're talking about how you don't need extremely heavy or standoff weapons to fight insurgents.

Why, pray tell, do you need stealth to fight insurgents? Why not just accept a fighter that can be stealthy with half the bombload or non-stealthy with the full bombload?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You could always mount weapons on external hard points if there's no need for stealth.

[adam_grif]

Can't the F22 mount external munitions at the cost of its stealth, too?

Regardless, I doubt all the armchair analysts have the full picture. I vaguely recall the Labor defense minister raising hell over how he wanted F22's now, not F35's, then when he got clearance to see the full specs he changed his tune. Of course my memory isn't the best and I could be mistaken.

[Lonestar]

The US Military (not just Air Force) will nearly be an all F-35 force. They basically put all of their eggs in one basket.

Depends who you ask. The USN is already leaking internal studies about the anticipated total cost of the F-35 relative to the Super Bugs, and alone of the services it still has a viable "Plan B".

[Sea Skimmer]

Can't the F22 mount external munitions at the cost of its stealth, too?

Higher then expected stress on the wings rules out using all four external pylons to maximum load, and the F-22 is very short ranged. You could hang either drop tanks or bombs on it, but not both. Serious limitation for an air to ground role.

[Simon_Jester]

Regardless, I doubt all the armchair analysts have the full picture. I vaguely recall the Labor defense minister raising hell over how he wanted F22's now, not F35's, then when he got clearance to see the full specs he changed his tune. Of course my memory isn't the best and I could be mistaken.

The problem isn't the specs; it's the cost per unit and the amount of debugging that will have to be done over the next five to ten years.

[adam_grif]

Regardless, I doubt all the armchair analysts have the full picture. I vaguely recall the Labor defense minister raising hell over how he wanted F22's now, not F35's, then when he got clearance to see the full specs he changed his tune. Of course my memory isn't the best and I could be mistaken.

The problem isn't the specs; it's the cost per unit and the amount of debugging that will have to be done over the next five to ten years.

I'm not making specific arguments for or against, it's just that we can't pretend to have the full picture. We shouldn't automatically trust the judgment of people just because they have the clearance to know these kind of details, but it's also unwise to make simplistic comparisons like "well, jeez, the F22 can carry just as many bombs! It's just as good! Why are we wasting time with F35?"

[Jim Raynor]

Jim, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there's one thing that just bugs me:

In one sentence you talk about how the F-35 needs to fly clean to avoid compromising its stealth. Two sentences later, you're talking about how you don't need extremely heavy or standoff weapons to fight insurgents.

Why, pray tell, do you need stealth to fight insurgents? Why not just accept a fighter that can be stealthy with half the bombload or non-stealthy with the full bombload?

Oh, you're right, you don't need stealth at all to fight insurgents. Even 4th gen fighters are overkill for that. But "the F-22 is a Cold War relic" "that has never fired a shot in Iraq or Afghanistan" has been a catchphrase that has been bandied around by its political opponents and mindlessly parroted by the mainstream media. As if the F-35 has fired a shot either, or that a ton of its features aren't overkill or useless for insurgents. Or that we should even get tied down in another long, small war. I thought the plan was to be out of Iraq by this year, and to win in Afghanistan and start withdrawing troops from there by 2011?

The F-35's advantage in these small wars is that it's a more economical way to haul bombs, that is basically all. Which is a valid argument; I've stated before that if the F-35 can kick the ass of anything in the next few decades not named the F-22, then someone is not wrong for wanting to save money and divert the resources to other military or non-military needs.

That kind of thinking makes me uneasy though, because of its risk. The current production plan seems so all-or-nothing to me.

[adam_grif]

If they were only after fighting insurgents with it, I imagine they'd be funding more UAVs. I'd guess that there's more to it than that.

[K. A. Pital]

...the F-22 is very short ranged.

What about the F-35 then? That one is downright nimble and pathetic compared to F-22, with a shorter range as well.

[Sea Skimmer]

What about the F-35 then? That one is downright nimble and pathetic compared to F-22, with a shorter range as well.

I don’t know what the hell you use for information, but the F-35 is designed to have around 40-50% greater unrefueled range then an F-22 on internal fuel depending on which version it is. That’s because it has basically the same engine but tuned for subsonic fuel economy rather then maximum dry thrust. This was the entire point of not making it supercruise. Agility at combat weight will be comparable to an F-16, which is more then good enough when DAS will let it target a fire and forget missile on a threat at any aspect without using a radar in the first place. That’s what you get when you design a weapon system, rather then just an aircraft. It works a whole lot better.

[K. A. Pital]

I don’t know what the hell you use for information, but the F-35 is designed to have around 40-50% greater unrefueled range then an F-22 on internal fuel depending on which version it is.

Oh, you're right - I misread the F-22's km combat radius versus F-35's mile combat radius. *slaps head* Serves me right.

Still though, upon examination the range gain does not seem to be as great as 50%, though combat radius gain is apparently quite great. This is strange, to be fair.(LM brochure, for F-22 this and this)

F-35A CTOL
Combat radius (internal fuel) >590 n.mi / 1,093 km
Range (internal fuel) . . ~1,200 n.mi / 2,222 km

F-35B STOVL
Combat radius (internal fuel) >450 n.mi / 833 km
Range (internal fuel) . . . ~900 n.mi / 1,667 km

F-35C CV
Combat radius (internal fuel) >600 n.mi / 1,111 km
Range (internal fuel) . . >1,200 n.mi / 2,222 km

F-22
Combat radius (internal fuel) ~410 nmi, 759 km
Range (internal fuel) ~1100 nmi, 2000 km

F-35A - CR gain 44%, range gain 11%.
F-35B - CR gain 10%, range loss 16%.
F-35C - CR gain 46%, range gain 11%.

Hmm. Either something is wrong here, or what? I always thought internal fuel range and combat radius are very closely related...

P.S. Holy crap the F-22 does have a craptacular range. This is a damn letdown. The Su-27 has a massively superior combat radius and range, and the MiG-29 - a light fighter! - basic config has the same range. Subsequent 4 gen Su and Mig mods have even greater range/radius. Man...

[Mr Bean]

Combat radius expects a dogfight or at the very least some hard maneuvering. During a dogfight your regularly fire walling your throttles and using your afterburners. All of which can do anything from increasing fuel consumption by fifty percent to tripping it depending on the plane. So range assumes your flying their at your best fuel economy and I believe back(Correct me if I'm wrong) while combat radius is if not the worst fuel consumption... pretty high up there.

[Blayne]

What would be the hypothetical problem with just producing replacements of older tried-and-proven planes and upgrading them with modern specs?

[K. A. Pital]

What would be the hypothetical problem with just producing replacements of older tried-and-proven planes and upgrading them with modern specs?

In general? For one, poor survivability against modern Russian SAMs (S-300) and upcoming SAMs (S-400), which can proliferate to China, India, Iran, Syria and hell knows where. In a dense SAM environment the gen 4 frames are at threat even from more primitive and older systems.

Low observability of 5 gen. allows to drastically increase survivaility of manned fighters - meaning you lose less machines, less pilots in dense SAM environment; better accomplish your missions.

[adam_grif]

What would be the hypothetical problem with just producing replacements of older tried-and-proven planes and upgrading them with modern specs?

As I understand it, if you're buying jets for roles that don't require cutting edge performance (i.e. bombing insurgents), then you'll just use existing airframes or UAV's. If you want a jet that is going to be going up against a comparable foe, technologically, then every little improvement counts, and it's far easier to design a new platform than it is to shoehorn old ones that were designed with different things in mind. Some innovations require totally new design features or radically altered ones, and some flaws in old systems are caused by design failures and not a lack of modern science.

[Sea Skimmer]

Still though, upon examination the range gain does not seem to be as great as 50%, though combat radius gain is apparently quite great.

Sorry I meant combat radius when I typed that.

Combat radius for the F-22 is particularly low, because they are assuming a significant distance of supersonic dash in the formula to determine it. An F-35, or other non supercruising aircraft would only have a short period on afterburner for combat factored in. The 410nm range figure corresponds to 100nm of supersonic dash in the formula. IIRC the combat radius increases to about 460nm of the F-22 only flies 50nm dashing at mach 1.7 or so, exact speed used is classified. Supercruise on dry thrust uses less fuel then afterburners, but its still a lot more then a subsonic cruise. Range figures are just how far you can fly usually, no allowances for combat or anything like that.

So the F-22 is a tanker hog. The F-35 meanwhile should do quite well, and will get a real big boost in the situations when it can use drop tanks. This is good since the US has no medium bombers now, and I think the chances are absurdly low that any 'new generation' manned bomber will ever be built for USAF service.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Yeah, but the F-22 was only air superiority and missile interception, if I recall correctly. Even if we'd ordered a thousand of them (and we probably should have), we still be stuck in this boat trying to make the F-35 fighter-of-all-trades work well and cheap.

Except Gates' entire reasoning for cancelling procurement for more Raptors was that they're too expensive and we could use the (falsely I will note) cheaper Lightning II to shore up the Eagle squadrons that weren't getting Raptors. Now not only are we using our multirole aircraft in a role for which they are only marginally successful at, but they're no longer cheaper than the dedicated air dominance fighter we were procuring. It's a lose/lose situation, Gates' plan however costs us more than the other did.

Why, pray tell, do you need stealth to fight insurgents? Why not just accept a fighter that can be stealthy with half the bombload or non-stealthy with the full bombload?

Because the United States will not be fighting insurgents for the rest of eternity, an air superiority or multirole fighter can act in the COIN role (as the Mudhen & Viper show) though not extremely well, but a COIN aircraft can not fight a conventional war since it's designed for ATG.

[K. A. Pital]

So the F-22 is a tanker hog.

*thinks* Yeah, it is... and it's also non-carrier capable, a feature that could excuse it's bad range. Hmm. Perhaps the decision to go with the F-35 was right.