Ok, lets frame this up.
First we have this blurb on ARES by the Program Manager of the JSF project.
That's not Sweetman playing with words.
That's the fucking program manager.
But let's break it down a bit...
After all the fantastic performance that the F-35 has been having lately, I've been wondering why they haven't shoved it off probation. I know this is part of the development track but dang. You have this guy talking about "sucks the wind out of your lungs"....that's not good.
A story appeared on Aviation Week that stated that the unit cost of the F-35B was 111 million dollars. Thats right where you want this bad boy to be and you can expect the cost to come down. But the repair bill is looking like a monster.
If that isn't bad enough then we have this statement...
We fucked this up.
This program is fucked up beyond recognition.
We need to get our bearings, get ourselves sorted out and then we can continue to march.
I hope I'm wrong.
Geez I HOPE I'M WRONG.
But that's what I read this guy saying. I've read Elements of Power's take on this but I keep coming back to the Admiral's words.
"...temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get managed right..."
The F-35 appears to be fucked. If you disagree (and on this one I'd love to be wrong) then hit me up.
First we have this blurb on ARES by the Program Manager of the JSF project.
"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs."Take it in.
"I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."
That's not Sweetman playing with words.
That's the fucking program manager.
But let's break it down a bit...
"Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs."Wow.
After all the fantastic performance that the F-35 has been having lately, I've been wondering why they haven't shoved it off probation. I know this is part of the development track but dang. You have this guy talking about "sucks the wind out of your lungs"....that's not good.
A story appeared on Aviation Week that stated that the unit cost of the F-35B was 111 million dollars. Thats right where you want this bad boy to be and you can expect the cost to come down. But the repair bill is looking like a monster.
If that isn't bad enough then we have this statement...
"I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."Grunt translation.
We fucked this up.
This program is fucked up beyond recognition.
We need to get our bearings, get ourselves sorted out and then we can continue to march.
I hope I'm wrong.
Geez I HOPE I'M WRONG.
But that's what I read this guy saying. I've read Elements of Power's take on this but I keep coming back to the Admiral's words.
"...temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get managed right..."
The F-35 appears to be fucked. If you disagree (and on this one I'd love to be wrong) then hit me up.
I don't know about game over considering there is a lot riding on this program but its certainly something the program did not need. You and I might understand what the VADM is saying but editorial writers and, gods help us, congress-critters won't.
ReplyDeleteSomeone commented over at Sweetman's that L-M might have trimmed too much during the weight saving campaign. I wonder what kind of tolerances there are.
What I do want to see is a book like Richard Whittle's one about the MV-22 the "Dream Machine". Regardless of what happens in the end, the F-35 story will be a good ready.
i totally agree...but answer this for me.
ReplyDeletewhy would the program manager make this type of statement to journalist at this point in the program?
if he had stated this when he first took over...if he put this on the table then i could see it...but why now?
no conspiracy but what is he setting us up for? the reaction from the media was predictable.
what's his game?
I might be wrong but I think the program manager, VADM David Venlet, was the RIO on one of the F-14's that shot down two Libyan SU-22's in 1981.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F14_Reagan_Library.JPG
I'll disagree with you Sol, in that the program is fucked. All that was said is that the program will need to be slowed a bit, here is part of his quote, "And then when we’ve got most of that known and we’ve got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production.”
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://defensetech.org/2011/12/02/pentagon-slow-f-35-production/#ixzz1fVBJqK5k
Defense.org.
It's interesting in today's day and age we are such a want it now society. When just yesterday on this blog was the story of the X program from start to finish. My point is that in every new design of an airplane there has always been a stage of the program where problems arise and then it's up to the engineers to figure it out and implement the necessary change to make it a serviceable bird. As I said though we are saturated with news about every little thing that goes wrong, and immediately everything is "fucked". So what is really going on? We've got a new aircraft that is undergoing growing pains, and knee jerk reactions to the same. I like this bird, and what the Lockheed Martin is doing for it
Phil
Phil...i read what you're saying and i get the 'we want it now' society but this isn't a case of wanting it now.
ReplyDeletewe've already been waiting. a training squadron was set up this year and the hope is to start training next year...we're like a family about to buy a new car.
we see the model we want, we're ready to buy it but they can't get it off the assembly line. so what do we do? in this case we're continuing to repair our old car---how long are we going to slep old planes till it becomes an issue? how much longer can our allies hang in?
i like Lockheed Martin (for the most part...one of their public affairs people was kind of an asshole but maybe a bad day)...and i love the airplane...but like that former vet and Obama voter told the President....i get tired of defending you!~
me.
ReplyDeletei didn't know that. but if you're right then that means he's even more of chess player than i'm giving him credit for. he knew what he was saying and there was a purpose behind it.
I don't know but you had a good comment about what did HQMC know and where did they know it? The sudden buy of the British Harriers happened out of no where, didn't it? Also the USAF overhaul/upgrade plan for the 15/16/22's.
ReplyDeleteA VADM and program manager doesn't do this kind of interview on his own unless he doesn't think he's got anything to lose. I think he's a stalking horse. The pentagon needs to be on board with some serious budget cuts. Compared to other programs like the MV-22, the F-35 isn't too far down the road. They've got some planes flying but its still in the testing. It would be a hit in terms of sunk costs but not that big of one.
Just a guess and I hope I'm wrong.
THANK YOU!
ReplyDeleteyou seem to be the only one that gets what i was aiming at.
long story short, i'm feeling the same type of bullshit that was hitting the airways right before they canceled the EFV.
first it was all was well, then we had the Commandant saying that we don't identify ourselves with a particular vehicle but with capabilities and now we have a PM saying what he did, HQMC buying Harriers when they've fought tooth and nail not to do any unnecessary upgrades because we were getting the F-35 and i just don't know.
If we hear _anything_ about "Well...the F-18E/F isn't too bad... Just for the short-term of course." we'll know the jig is up.
ReplyDeleteThe Danger Room blog had a bit about how the -1Y and -1Z buys might be slowed down to provide money for everything else. I dearly hope they don't go that route. Especially if the -35B is slowed down, or gods forbid, canceled.
i dont see this as a big deal, maybe we went too fast initially and it bit us in the ass, but it seems that if they get these problems sorted out, and the planes that are already produced become trainers and not active in squadrons and future production aircraft with fixes are actual frontline craft then this wont be a big deal, because the training aircraft will have better maintenance and fewer hours on them and more time to repair. i think they want quality over quantity in the short term, in the long term we will have both, but we gotta get it right.
ReplyDeleteThey might be just setting the groundwork for cancelling the B, C or both. Hard to see cancellation of the A. They can likely sell a lot of those.
ReplyDeleteme.
ReplyDeleteif i hear anyone say F-18 that wears a Marine uniform you're right. its over.
joe.
i think you're the most optimistic person i've ever talked to. i hope you're right but it seems to me that something is brewing here.
Forrest.
if any plane can be canceled its got to be the C. the B has the most export potential of any model and the C appears to only have two customers. a very reluctant US Navy and a very small order from the Royal Navy.
I think the program is fine. Maybe slower being fielded but it takes time for technology to be done right. Would rather have a fleet of great planes later that make a contribution to a fight, than a fleet thats under repair when the fighting starts
ReplyDeleteSol, thanks but i think its a very practical approach to take. We know this fighter will be the premier air dominance fighter of the US military for ATLEAST 30 years (there are no alternatives, the 15 silent eagle isnt an alternative, nor is 18E/F). Also the 35 has proven this year its capabilities, the issues at question here are structural issues, they are not combat system related issues. So once LM starts to look at all the little things, redesigning some parts to make them stronger (i think one issue was the frame was a bit weak), so the 35 is still a strong program, DOD needs this weapon system, its kind of like if the M1 was having problems, the gun, turrent and electronics are great, it just has problems with its tracks on the ground, thats easier to sell as a fix than saying the gun wont shoot.
ReplyDeleteit reminds me of this a few years ago, the whole F15 fleet was grounded because one fell apart in the sky, they had to ground because of a defect, they are just wanting to prevent an I told you so after the fact.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/VIDF15s021308.xml
ok, all but if we have to slow down even from how slow we've gone then we're looking at 20 year development cycles for airplanes!
ReplyDeletethat means that we should be designing the replacement for the F-35 and have it in flight testing while the F-35 is entering the fleet.
think about that! the F-35 is entering the fleet and if its development time is an indication of how business will be done then we should have a competition held, mock ups flown and a decision made about who is gonna build the next generation airplane while the current gen is JUST entering service.
Well I wish we did that for ground vehicles sol, so that every time one fails for the corps we have something eles to fail Haha we just gotta get this right.
ReplyDeleteThe plane is still major leaps ahead of its competition.
john.
ReplyDeleteagreed but i'm just kinda getting pissed. we got to get this right but i'm beginning to lose faith. we need to get some gear to the fleet not have it stuck in development.
joe.
is that the same? i mean are the examples the same?
no the tank one is just one i made up, but it wouldnt surprise me if something real did happen, i dont think people appreciate the F35 is many leaps forward in terms of technology, so there will be flaws and we will have to fix them, what has made our military so capable is our ability to adapt, the F35 is a learning curve, look at the F22, it was grounded for months because the aircraft couldnt get adeqeuate oxygen to its pilots.
ReplyDeleteSol when you talk about the development of the 35, and how long it's gonna take to dev. the next gen air frame, then it's not a bad deal to start with development of the next big bird now. The time of pushing out a new air frame every other year is long gone. Look how long it took Boeing build the 787 dreamliner and the problems getting it in the air. I understand where you coming from though, with what almost appears to sound like an alarm. Lets hope that's not the case, and LM gets the problems sorted out without too much more delay.
ReplyDeleteHope you're just trying to get a rise from the Sweeties.
ReplyDeleteTake away all the 'selling' and 'framing' around the quotations and your left with: the JSF is a pretty normal program. Read between the lines - they've been 'in toto' under-budgeted based upon their own announced internal URF cost estimates. (could be his or his predecessor's fault in this case, or they could have asked for the money but were told "too bad, you get $X" ) When you get to the PEO level ALL commentary has political motivation. The only question is: who is his target audience? Is this a forelock tug to the Congressional BS on 'concurrency'? Is this more hardball over the next LRIP contract with LM? Is this just CYA? This is one of the reasons I hate going to DC - EVERY action and word has a 'political' angle. Don't discount Whittle's objectives in his careful framing of the quotes either.
Remember: these are the SAME mods that were fretted over in September when they were thought they would cost 2-3 times of the current estimates. Not a lot of hand wringing then was there?
SMSgt Mac.
ReplyDeletei read your blog article on this several times.
to be honest it had me chilled out and feeling good until i went back and read what the Admiral said.
he isn't talking about just solving this structural problem. he isn't talking about fixing soft ware.
he went after the very model that this program chose to make itself affordable. want to know something else? the Sweeties and people like him have been hollering to do the very same thing. stop production and just do the test program.
i told them that was just a ruse to kill the program. concurrency is designed to lower costs rapidly to make it affordable. the Admiral just said that the Sweeties were right.
the fucking program manager is using the same wording as the critics of the program have been using.
oh and you're right. he knows what the budget situation is. he knows that many are calling for the program to be canceled. he knows all this yet he makes this statement now?
sorry my friend but this does seem a little bit too coincidental for it to have been a slip of the tongue.
but lets back track and you find the CJCS basically calling the airplane unaffordable and i'm getting that EFV feeling that we're about to hear some very bad news.
Based on the F-16 to F-35 timeline, we will not start development on the F-35 replacement until the mid to late 2040s (10-15 years after last F-35 produced, just like the F-16).
ReplyDeleteThis is very similar to recent report of the high maintenance costs of the MV-22, mainly because of the Rolls Royce engines burning so hot. There is no escape even for the F-22, which has its oxygen issue, and supposedly is still not combat ready... Cancellation of the EFV and GCV. Why are we buying the UK's remaining Harrier fleet and putting the purchase money towards the UK's future F-35 fleet? Have you noticed also that the F-35 is a lot more accessible to purchase for countries like India and Japan now; there is a real concerted effort to financially get this bird off the ground. Is it really because of cost overruns or is just that the defense contractors cannot deliver the technology that they promised, who is to pay? I am a strong advocate for a very good defense and an excellent offense, but I think it's a shame these vehicles are so over budget and over schedule, both beyond reason. I really believe the US needs to have a tighter joint procurement strategy and a firmer hand with the defense contractors. I'm sure we'll keep the F-35, F-22, and the MV-22, we're way to vested to walk away now, it would be idiotic, but if these vehicles really can't deliver in combat, then what? We're too close, let's just figure out the problems and get them built!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRepost due to some editing:
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to throw out some time frames and to show what can go wrong on a Non-Advanced airframe development evolution-the C-17. From the inception being the ASMT with RFP in Jan. 1972. In Nov. 1972 a downslect to Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas YC-15. First flight for YC-15 was August 26, 1975 using a kludge of parts from other aircraft. After a 600 hour flight test program the ASMT was ended in December 1979, while in November 1979 a C-X Task Force was formed to look at enlarging YC-15 into what would become the C-17.
On August 28, 1981 McDonnell Douglas was chosen to build the C-17 after bids from Boeing and Lockheed. Limited budgets reduced program funding forcing a four year delay. In December 1985 a full scale development contract was awarded with first flight planned for 1990. The USAF had a requirement for 210 aircraft.
Development problems and limited funding caused more delays in the 1980's. In April 1990 Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced the order from 210 to 120.
Maiden flight of T-1 took place on Sept. 15th 1991.The static test article wing failed at 128% design load, which was 150% below requirement (sound familiar Alcoa?) on Oct. 1992. After a $100 million spent to redesign the wing stucture it failed again at 145% during a second test in Sept. 1993. It wasn't until a careful review of the data was it shown that it wasn't loaded correctly and that it did meet requirements.
In 1993 the DoD gave the contractor 2 years to solve production and cost overrun problems or face termination of the contract after the 40th aircraft. By April 1994 the C-17 remained over budget, and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specs. It also had tech problems with mission software, landing gear, etc..
In march of 1994 the Army decided it no longer need the 60,000lbs LAPES delivery system on the C-17 feeling the 42,000lbs one on the C-130 was sufficient. The C-17 was limited to this lower weight during testing. Issues with airflow prevented the C-17 from meeting its airdrop requirements. In Feb. 1997 the GAO revealed that C-17 with full payload could not land on a 3,000 foot wet runway, simulations suggested 5,000ft was required.
In March 1997 the YC-15 was transferred to AMARC to be made flightworthy again for further flight test.
But most if not all problems have been address, fixed, solved, or just plain ignored.
At one time they were going to cancel the program and replace it with more C-5Bs and 747Fs, you now have a world class airlifter that is perhaps the best in the world. with over 200 in the USAF, and other users like the RAF, UAE, RCAF, RAAF, NATO, India, and Qatar, its a hopeful sign for the F-35 and its future.
Sorry for the REALLY long post, I kind of a history with the C-17, my father was USAF and we moved out to Long Beach for a good part of the programs life. I kind of grew up the bird.
I really enjoy the blog, and thank you for posting the MEU 11 stuff, I have a friend who is dating someone on the float and I send her the links to your blog.
Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
Well, not all critics of the programme want it cancelled, they just want it run better so that a) the end result is a v capable aircraft and b) taxpayers money isn't wasted, or the end result is so expensive that you can't afford the numbers needed to maintain a credible force.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind, JSF is now in the danger zone of ending up like the F-22 in that only small numbers end up being purchased. This would be disastrous for many western airforces. I don't think you can pin the blame on any one factor. It has to be remembered that the JSF programme is very ambitious, both in technology integration, quick timescale and affordability targets. To be honest, I would prefer a Russian approach to aircraft design of continued evolution i.e. new airframe but existing engines. Cuts risk, and reduces up front costs.
Oh, and I would ban professional project managers with no engineering experience from managing any defence programme. In my experience, they always promise a quick resolution to any technical problem without appreciating the challenges involved.
ReplyDelete"Oh, and I would ban professional project managers with no engineering experience from managing any defence programme. In my experience, they always promise a quick resolution to any technical problem without appreciating the challenges involved. "
ReplyDeleteThis. Add extend that to any politicians anywhere near a procurement program.
As for the rest of the hysteria here people need to get a grip.
get a grip on what Sferrin?
ReplyDeleteSweetman didn't say that the program needs to be slowed down (well he has but he didn't say it here). APA, ELP or any of the other critics aren't saying it.
its the Fucking Program Manager throwing this bomb across the bow of the program.
he knows what he's doing. he knows the implications of this. he understands the politics.
so who exactly needs to get a grip?
you can bet that HQMC got news of this before we all did and what did they do? they bought Brit Harriers.
you can bet that budget cutters on capital hill have heard these words...you can bet that the SecDef has heard these words so what does that tell you cowboy?
Sol, maybe this is just the political person in me but is it possible this was leaked to help with the negotiations with LM? i mean if the military is wanting LM to take more of the costs of the upgrades, putting this out there would make LM shutter and may bring the price down for the next LRIP group.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Adm Venlet is simply preparing everyone for the release of the bottom up review. If one had paid attention to the direct Congressional testimony of Venlet and Dr Carter it was clear the program had more issues than JPO had been willing to acknowledge in the past. Venlet actually stated based on past experience nobody should believe anything JPO said but that he was basing his new analysis on very rigorous investigation.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the critics have been shown to be correct on various core aspects of the program. The basic conceptualization and level of concurrency was flawed and Venlet and Dr Carter stated so months ago. Management of the program by JPO, in the past, has been very poor.
When Venlet now is stating that the amount of rebuild required in early LRIP jets is taking his breath away that's a very clear statement that continuing to buy lots of LRIP jets is going to be both problematic and expensive.
Another elephant in the room is the projected buy. The USAF is never getting 1,700. The last QDR indicated 10 strike wings. At least one of these will be flying a fighter sized UCAS not the F-35A. Even 12 wings of F-35A is around 1,300 and a more realistic structure might be 10 wings requiring around 1,100. This is without any force structure reduction resulting from the budget crisis.
When testing is closer to finished the F-35 is very likely going to be a game changing strike fighter. The real question is when and how much? Clearly the answer is more than we thought and a few more years out. It's not too late to fix the program and Vinlet is the man for job and frankly it's a breath of fresh air that someone wants to not only get to the heart of the matter but is willing to be candid about it.
Finally it's worth considering that both Vinlet and Dr Carter have pretty much stated that prior JPO projections were fairly mendacious, as was pointed out some years earlier by GAO, JET, etc. The thing is JPO and LM were saying the same thing. Now we have JPO and DOD stating the program needs to be slowed down and LM saying the program needs to be accelerated. Frankly taking LM at this point on face value is at best questionable and possibly dangerous.
thats a strangely reassuring statement.
ReplyDelete