In an attempt to determine when we all received solid, concrete information that this program was in a tailspin, I looked up quotes from program officials that would tell us when the alarm bells rang for all to hear.
Let me add that these are the public statements. Internally alarms should have been ringing possibly years earlier.
I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years,” Bogdan told reporters during a visit to Australia. “I want them to take on some of the risk of this program, I want them to invest in cost reductions, I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I’m not getting all that love yet.”
“Its an unaffordable program at the numbers that we’re using,” Lieutenant General Terry Robling told Reuters earlier this month.
What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine,” Bogdan said, who was speaking to reporters at the Australian International Airshow.
So yeah.
Those are alarm bells that we were given. But what about recently? Check out this carefully parsed statement by Admiral Greenert.
“Speaking for the Navy,” added the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, “I need the fifth-generation fighter, and that [F-35] provides it, so we’re all in — but it has to perform. It has problems; it is making progress.”Yeah. I missed Admiral Greenert well phrased statement earlier too.
“I do not at this point believe that it is time to look for an exit ramp, if you will, for the Navy for the F-35C,” continued Greenert, who in the past has damned the Joint Strike Fighter with similar faint praise.
"It has to perform..."
"I do not at this point believe that this is time to look for an exit ramp...."
That sounds like a guy that will bail if the tail hook isn't fixed and costs continue to rise. But what should concern the planes biggest supporters and why they should be all over ANOTHER RESTRUCTURING of the program is the code issue.
I'm moving toward the cancelation, not the delay camp because I'm beyond frustrated with so much of the budget being tied up in one aviation program. The pentagon would be wise to do a top to bottom review now...before signing a new production contract to see exactly where the program is and when it will be able to deliver a fully functioning airplane.
UPDATE:
How jacked up is this program and how fouled up is LM and PW? via Defense News....
“There’s no doubt a large amount of our classified data probably made it into” the designs for the J-20, a Chinese plane modeled on the F-22, and the J-31, a JSF equivalent, according to Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, USAF military deputy for acquisition, who appeared with Bogdan at the hearing.So they're late, leak like a sieve and want even more money from the DoD. It must be understood that servicemen serve the state and contractors serve shareholders. Don't be confused by the fact that these are "defense" companies. They're profit driven monsters just like Facebook or Google.
Both planes were developed in the span of about 22 months, according to Davis, which shows China has achieved a level of acquisition ability that could be potentially dangerous to U.S. interests.
Senators asked the panel, which included Davis, Bogdan and Vice Adm. W. Mark Skinner, whether China has faced any repercussions over the apparent theft of data.
“If they’re going to go ahead and copy what we got, they at least have to pay a little bit for it,” Manchin said. “Has their government been put to the task? It’s very obvious what they have done. ... Have we prosecuted anybody? Are we on the tail of anybody?”
The panel gave noncommittal answers to Manchin’s question, but Bogdan expressed confidence in the Pentagon’s ability to protect key information.
“In the last few years we have implemented some fairly robust procedures to keep F-35 data within the confines of the department,” he said, adding that the partner nations are also doing a good job protecting information.
But, “I am a little less confident about our industry partners, to be quite honest with you,” Bogdan said. “I am not that confident outside the department.”
While he did not elaborate, both Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney insist their cybersecurity is potent enough to protect sensitive information.
Which is why the F-35 and the LCS should have been canceled a long, long, long time ago
ReplyDeleteYeah, lets cancel it. I'm sure we could get a better, cheaper aircraft sooner if we did that.
ReplyDeleteits right there for you to see. the PM said that Lockheed is basically raping the taxpayer with their pricing, delivery etc....additionally HE SAID THAT ITS UNAFFORDABLE!!!!!
DeleteGreenert said that the plane has problems, that it has to perform but that he's not at this time to look for an exit.
so i call for another top to bottom review of the plane to see where its really at. no politics, no bullshit from AMOS just an outside agency that can tell us all where it stands so we can move forward with confidence.
that shouldn't be so hard. it shouldn't be something to be feared. it should be welcomed if things are as good as we're being told.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE WITHOUT THE BIASED BELIEF THAT THE USMC WILL COLLAPSE WITHOUT IT AND THE VIEW IS DIFFERENT once you acknowledge that no one program will cause the collapse of the US, the destruction of the USMC or the fall of the West if we decide to cancel it.
Dude seriously, chill. An admiral saying, "I do not at this point believe that this is time to look for an exit ramp...." means that he secretly DOES want to cancel it? Really? As for saying that it has to do what it's suppose to, friggin' DUH. It's the same as would be with any product and it's NOT the same as saying "it won't perform". Guess what, there hasn't been a new aircraft yet that didn't have issues to work through. Given that there has never been an aircraft anywhere near this complex (by necessity - fighters are NEVER going to get less complex - it's the nature of the beast)it should surprise absolutely nobody that you can't just push a button and expect a 100%, ready-for-prime-time, aircraft to magically pop out of a vending machine. ANYBODY with even a smidgen of knowledge of the subject would tell you the same thing. This is basic shit we're talking about here, not rocket science. Where do you think we'd be if the USAF had cancelled the F-15 when they had something like 70 airframes sitting around with NO ENGINES at the beginning of the program? The F-4 line was still going strong, maybe we should have given the Eagle a mercy killing, right? Or how 'bout the F-16? That thing was totally outclassed by the Mig-23 when it entered service. Hell, the F-16 couldn't even carry BVR missiles or perform precision attack at night when it first came out. Or how 'bout that Hornet huh? Never came close to its promised range,and its original elliptical fuel tanks had to be scrapped because they could never make them work. Small problem is the Hornet was depending on those to get a decent range. Whoops. Better yet, how 'bout that Tomcat? Didn't get the engines it was DESIGNED for until the damn thing was almost ready to retire. Shall I go on? It's one thing to see somebody, who's terrified the success of the F-35 will mean the end of European fighter aircraft, push an agenda. It's something else entirely to see someone swallow that line hook-line-and-sinker because they lack the basic understanding that would enable them to see what's really going on.
Deleteso if there are additional problems, further delays, problems with source code do you just fall back on the meme that its suck costs and that we maintain the course.
Deletewill you label the new people that hop on the delay this puppy bad wagon as individuals that don't want to "stay the course" and say that "when the going got tough, they got off?"
what is your personal cutoff point for failure? or is it that you believe that no matter the costs, no matter the problems, no matter LM's behavior that we should all sit down quietly and accept what we're being told?
Sferrin, really, the f-16? the F-15? Until Boyd and the Fighter Mafia ran the EM numbers on the F-15, it was going to be another swing-wing, heavy POS like most of the Century series. It took a lot of re-design in the actual design phase to work out its issues and while it still had teething problems, it worked out a lot better than intended.
DeleteThe F-16 wasn't designed for BVR or precision attack at night from the get go. It was supposed to be a cheap, single-engine fighter that was fast and maneuverable to augment the F-15 because the Eagle was too expensive and couldn't be purchased in effective numbers. It wasn't until after the F-16 was forced down USAF throat that they began shoe-horning in BVR, precision night attack, etc. AFTER it was being built that they had those capabilities. And by the end of the 80's, the USAF was buying each F-16 for 11-12 million per plane. The USAF added requirements to the F-16 and it got better and cheaper.
The F-35 was supposed to the replacement for the F-16, an affordable, single-engine fighter that would augment the F-22. Yet, in spite of a decade of design, another decade of testing, and the performance criteria REDUCED (weight, speed, etc.), it still doesn't work.
And Lockheed is saying that we can't get it for less than $110,000,000 a copy? It's gotten heavier, slower and more expensive? I call bullshit on Lockheed Martin. It is no longer a company that follows the principles of capitalism, it is a Soviet design bureau that depends entirely upon the largesse of the government. F..K LM
The Military-Industrial complex needs a wake-up call and putting a bullet into the F-35's temple might be just the thing.
There are a lot of factors to consider.
Delete1. What would be the repercussions to the industrial base were the F-35 to be cancelled? Turning the crank on the F-16 or Super Hornet machine isn't the same as developing a new aircraft. In fact at least part of the problems in both the F-22 and F-35 were that the entire workforce is less experienced than those that developed the F-teens. The guys in those days had worked numerous programs. Someone coming in on the F-35 today may only see one or two more designs in their lifetime. The US is really feeling the pain in high speed flight for that very reason. (See here:)
http://www.livestream.com/aiaa/video?clipId=pla_76faa82b-b9e6-4c6f-aa1e-846b55a3c0cc&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
So maintaining the industrial base is important. This is crucial. So much so that it's importance is difficult to overstate.
2. What are the alternatives? Well, we cancel the F-35B and when the Harriers run out of life, that's it for fixed-wing air on 11 flight decks that are USMC specific. Given the certain reduction of CVNs that loss would only become more painful. For the F-35C, sure, you could keep buying Super Hornets. How's that going to effect the industrial base? How will that enable the US to stay, not just competitive with, but ahead of nations producing fighters like the T-50 and J-20? If all we're building is aircraft that are dubious at best against some aircraft that are in service *today* what's that going to mean in 20-30 years? And what will happen to our ability to design aircraft during that time? For the F-35A there's the F-16 will all the same issues facing the F/A-18 - obsolescence, atrophy of the industrial base, lack of competitiveness against potential adversaries, and ultimately, more dead pilots and the soldiers they're protecting.
3. Is there actual evidence that LM is lying? Or is it that they gave their best answer, with the then available information, and then found new issues down the road? Just because one says, "according to the calculations this should be the answer" and then they get bit with an unknown, that doesn't mean they were lying. If I tell you an aircraft will cost $100 million and then 2 years later, *SURPRISE* the cost of composite and titanium skyrockets, well, it's going to cost more. That doesn't mean I didn't give a good-faith answer to start. And the F-35's development has spanned a much greater length of time than prior aircraft so those factors will hit it harder. And again, there are logical reasons that it's taking longer to develop the F-35 than say, the F-16. For one thing there are 3 variants. For another the aircraft is FAR more complex. Yes, the complexity is necessary. Unless we want to cut things like stealth, internal weapons carriage, sensors, computing power, etc. complexity is unavoidable.
4. Delaying will only make things cost more. There's not a single example out there of delaying an aircraft program bringing costs down. Why? Because you either A. maintain the standing army of people who know how to build the thing while they produce nothing, or B. back wayyy back up the learning curve and have many of the same problems you previously solved. Oh, and let's not forget lead time. Some parts (forgings, gears, custom seals, etc.) have lead times measured in YEARS. (Assuming the companies haven't gone out of busiess. If they have then you get to find and qualify new suppliers. Cha-ching.)
DeleteWhat would make me want to delay or kill the program at this point? Nothing that is likely to happen. Why? Lots of reasons. 1. There isn't a viable alternative. 2. The most difficult parts of development are behind us. 3. Cancelling it and starting over will just put us right back where we are today with nothing to show for it but tens of billions pissed away and decades for competitors to blow past us. All so we could, in all likelihood, have even more problems on it's replacement. It doesn't take balls to quit when things look tough, it takes balls to stay the course. I just thank god there hasn't been a crash (knock on wood) as the panty-twisting hysterics would probably shut down the internet. Nothing of worth has ever come easy.
"Sferrin, really, the f-16? the F-15? Until Boyd and the Fighter Mafia ran the EM numbers on the F-15, it was going to be another swing-wing, heavy POS like most of the Century series. It took a lot of re-design in the actual design phase to work out its issues and while it still had teething problems, it worked out a lot better than intended."
DeleteOh boy. Do I even want to waste the time to destroy this?
As far as relations with Lockheed Martin and P&W are concerned, those have improved dramatically. The Bogdan quotes used are dated, and he has spoken on the issue since.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20130425/DEFREG02/304250020/F-35-Office-Sees-Improved-Relations-Contractor
Regarding the software issue, Lockheed reassigned two hundred engineers, and built a second lab devoted to the task.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/19/lockheed-reassigns-workers-to-fix-f35-software.html?comp=700001075741&rank=6
the Bogdan quotes i used are from Jan. this year. yours are from April. i see that as simply a face saving gesture. niceties are common place in DC. brutal straight forward truth is rare.
Deletemy guess is that he chose to be diplomatic instead of honest. sorta like Sferrin telling his wife that she lost weight.
as far as source code is concerned, i'd bet say that its a bit late to finally be devoting additionaly engineers to the task. its been late for years and is even in trouble in this latest restructuring. but you left off what Bogdan said about the software issue from that same article...a Jun this year article.
"Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who manages the F-35 program for the military, told lawmakers in April that he's concerned the slow pace of software development may delay the delivery of the most lethal version of the F-35 fighter jet beyond 2017."
Bogdan's quotes on improved relations with contractors came from a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, so I doubt he was trying to save face. He even goes on to state he was putting contractors on notice, with his quotes in January.
ReplyDeleteBogdan's quote about software delay beyond 2017 relates to block 3F software. The USMC plans on declaring IOC with block 2B, and the AIr Force with block 3I. The only service waiting for block 3F is the Navy. Block 3F software, which undergoes a critical review this sumer, isn't expected until 2017. Lockheed has several years, with engineers working in two separate software labs twenty four hours per day, to complete, test, and validate block 3F.
I usually agree with you on a lot of things Sol, but instead of complaining about the JSF eating up the budget, maybe try looking at the real problem, namely that the Military budget, and particularly the R&D and acquisition budgets are too small. Thats the reason that the F-35 is eating the budget, the budgets are too damn small, and Obama and congress aren't helping with sequestration, not to mention that even before sequestration Obama canceled a butt-load of major programs and cut billions from the budget in order to pretend that he was "fiscally responsible". Hell, that's the real problem over the last three presidencies and 20 years, the fact that Military modernization has constantly been deferred to a later date that never comes.
ReplyDeletewait....you're telling me that the US military, which i fully support....is somehow underfunded? you talk about modernization hasn't happened but we can afford gucci gear like M27's...LCS...F-35? we have so much staff that if you rounded up all the flag officers/SES and their support you could have several battalions of people essentially getting paid to do nothing.....
Deleteyou say the US military is underfunded and yet we outspend the next 10 top militaries combined????
uh. yeah. we're cool, but on this we disagree.
The military has a lot of problems, but lack of money isn't one of them. It isn't a money issue, it is a priorities issue.
Deleteit has prioritized superfluous General Officer Weapons Systems and bloated, outdated organizational models over acquisitions and those choices, (made since the 90's by kiss-assing brass who have since retired), have come home to haunt them in the Dark Age of the Unholy Sequester.
Look at the Army, perhaps the worse offender, and the lack of serious reform. It's organized like it was in 1918, along the lines of Frederick Taylor, expecting a massive influx of draftees to wage WWII all over again. There is no need for Army, Corps and Division command echelons since any time Army deploys, it is assigned to a Joint Theater-level command. Those command echelons need to be replaced by a Corps-equivalent that bridges the gap between Theater command and BCTs.
But that sort of re-organization would mean dozens of General billets would evaporate and where would their old grab-ass classmates from West Point go if they aren't assigned a cushy billet for unit that will never be deployed?
All those research, doctrine, training, acquisition billets occupied by General Officers? Why?
The total number of GOWS billets should have been reduced after the cold war, but instead they've increased! why do they reduce the number of soldiers (the muscle), and add more GOWS (fat)?
90% of those GOWS should be retired and 80% of the former billets reduced. There's a fresh new crop of Colonels with combat experience who wouldn't be beholden to tradition, kissing ass, or whatever else who could do the jobs held by GOWS just fine.
Thats a good point. I guess the point I am trying to make is that although the Military budget as a whole has increased over the past decade, that has come at the expense of the R&D and acquisition budgets. If you look at the numbers, those two parts of the budget have been chronically underfunded in order to pay for the superfluous billets you mention, as well as increasing personnel costs and of course the wars in the Middle East. That is the problem. Its a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. And as a result, the parts of the budget that are responsible for ensuring our Military superiority have been continuously cut while the total budget has increased. There is a lot of waste in the Military budget, but that is nothing compared to 20 years of deferred modernization, which is the real problem. The MPC and ACV haven't been screwed over because the JSF is actually "eating up the budget", they've suffered from the fact that the actual modernization budget has been allowed to shrink. Thats the reason that the JSF is "eating up the budget". Its a trend started during the Clinton administration, slightly slowed down during the Bush years, and then kicked into overdrive over the past four years. Blame sequestration, blame thinner and thinner modernization budgets, blame the root causes, not the symptoms.
DeleteThe CNO will never publicly say that he's against the F-35 program. In the July 2012 issue of the Proceedings he writes that stealth technology has limits and that our new environment of future conflicts will stress the need of better payloads and ordnance. Here's a link: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/did-cno-just-take-a-big-swipe-at-f35/
ReplyDeleteI am 90% certain that the CNO is a public supporter of the F-35 only because unknown political forces are requiring him to be. From an objective point of view he seems to have already been looking for exit ramps from the F-35 program and he is wise in doing so. F/A-XX is the Navy breaking away from joint programs to do its own thing. The CNO's office is involved with the testing of the Advanced Super Hornet upgrade program, which is the same "Super Hornet Block III" mentioned in the June 2013 Proceedings issue. The quick advancement of the X-47B is also telling, despite the fact that it was ordered to advance by the Executive Office. In fact, with all of these options on the table combined, the F-35C really doesn't bring anything unique or valuable to the Navy. The Navy's already compensated for all of the capabilities that it needs and if the F-35 program were to be cancelled tomorrow the Navy wouldn't lose a thing.
The Air Force would lose their much vaunted F-16, A-10, F-117 replacement. The line for the F-16 is still open, but they have been extremely stubborn about buying any new F-16s and all of their current F-16s are very old. The fact that the Air Force didn't buy new F-16s means that even if they were to compensate with the cancellation of the F-35 by buying new F-16s a vast majority of their fighter fleet will be rotting away and they will need to buy a lot of new aircraft really fast if they want to keep their numbers up. The USAF stupidly retired the F-117 after putting their absolute trust in the F-35 so that capability is gone. The F-35A was never a true A-10 replacement in the first place so their great CAS ability is at risk of disappearing.
The Marine Corps would survive, but their Legacy F/A-18s are already warn away and nearing retirement faster than the Navy F/A-18s. It almost looks like they are putting the F/A-18 away permanently right now in order to make room in the budget for the F-35B. Without it their air-to-air capability and strike fighter capability will be gone. The Marines would also risk losing their STOVL capability since they would rely on the Harrier till 2030 without a viable replacement in the works. Their Electronic Attack ability is already at great risk of disappearing since they didn't buy Growlers.
I can't help but wonder if the Navy has secretly been preparing for the F-35 to collapse or never deliver on its requirements. The USAF and USMC simply went in the F-35 program whole sale.
Even if Lockheed, Boeing, and etc were state owned and operated I'm sure the Chinese would still have figured out a way to steal their secrets. After all, they managed to steal all the technical data on the MiG 1.44 from Mikoyan in the late 90s.
ReplyDeletewe'll never know but we can take a look at whats happening now and Russia and India seem to have a lid on security when it comes to the PAK-FA. on the other hand we also see whats happened to our tech in the hands of LM.
Deleteno one is reporting on it but if its true and they did steal enough of our secret data to build those clones in 22 months then LM should be blocked from all future government work.
i say that without passion too. thats a simple analysis of available facts. think about it like this. they want to run Snowden up a flag pole because he disclosed that the government was spying on US citizens. LM had such glaring security holes that Chinese hackers were able to get info on our most important (i say that with sarcasm) project.
which is the bigger real threat to national security?
I was wondering about that myself. Actually I think I know why the Russians have been able to keep their stuff secret. Russian designers and engineers have a long history of doing large portions of their work on paper. No one can hack paper. They simply write out their equations and store the work on paper in a well organized process. This is probably why the Chinese are still trying to steal things from Russia like engines and actual fighter aircraft parts.
DeleteI love that there is no middle ground with you. The F-35 was the best thing since sliced bread a year ago on this blog and fuck anyone who dare said otherwise, and now this... WOW LOL
ReplyDeleteHave you bothered to run any of this bullshit by SMSGT Mac and asked for his opinion?
"i see that as simply a face saving gesture. niceties are common place in DC. brutal straight forward truth is rare.
my guess is that he chose to be diplomatic instead of honest."
Thats a great concept, because it means that you can pick and choose when to believe what someone is saying or simple dismissing it, or your personal favorite-- interpreting what they "really mean"
So you essentially twist anything anyone says until it fits your narrative. Brilliant. You tell everyone "listen to this guy! Hes a flag officer!" then the next second you are screaming what a bunch of untrustworthy lying scumbags they all are.
BTW there are multiple outside agencies that check up on the JSF, and have been monitoring it for years (But you knew that)
Can you imagine one F-35 being shot down in the CAS AV-8B/A-10 role? 110 million a piece!!!
ReplyDeleteDidn't Kamov admit that they designed the Z-10 attack chopper? And Russia helped with verifying the flight dynamics of the J-20? No doubt Russia now probably regrets helping a nation who will shamelessly copy and export their tech know-how.
Stealing LM or other US tech is one thing, but Russia and China can come up with their own good tech – it's just that we taught the Chinese how to manufacture everything large scale. The main thing is they will learn of the capabilities and how to counter it more than anything. Like Russian missile tech is supposed to be years ahead of the West.
Admin, what was the need for US to go for F-35 JSF when they already have F-22 Raptor(5th gen fighter)? Read somewhere that F-22 is faster, less costly, more maneuverable, lill less stealthy than JSF. Don't you think US should have gone for 6th gen instead of another 5th gen? Some UCAV of US Navy named X-47(not sure abt the name) is also a promising project under trials. Like IAF is making FGFA with Russia but still planning AMCA...this's bull§hit!
ReplyDeleteIf J-20 has a grand daddy its not F22 but an older Mig 1.44 prototype
ReplyDelete