Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Are we seeing an internal battle being played out in public?


via Bloomberg Business Week.
The Pentagon’s weapons buyer questioned whether operating costs for Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT:US)’s F-35 fighters will drop as low as the $857 billion over 55 years predicted by the office developing the plane.
“We’re looking at that number,” Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for acquisition, said today.

He was asked about an estimate provided to lawmakers by the F-35 program office in July that said maintaining a fleet of the fighters would cost 22 percent less than the official estimate of $1.1 trillion developed two years ago by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office. Operating costs include expenses from spare parts to repairs and fuel.
“We are going to do a review of F-35 this fall and we’ll get another estimate out of” the cost-analysis office, Kendall said after speaking at defense conference in Washington. “We’ll probably make some adjustments. I do expect it to come down. I don’t know if it will come down” to $857 billion.
The F-35 is the Pentagon’s costliest weapon system, with an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion for a fleet of 2,443 aircraft, up 68 percent from the projection in 2001, as measured in current dollars.
The rising costs and troubles in building the plane even as it’s being developed have led to criticism in Congress. This year, lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon test office have said the aircraft is making progress in flight tests and in stabilizing production.
I said in an earlier post that we're reaching critical mass with the F-35.  Consider this.

*  The X-47 has thrilled with the potential it displayed during its carrier trials.  Its obviously well suited to perform the deep strike mission especially in the anti-access environment of the Pacific.  Yet for some reason, the powers that be are insisting that ISR be prioritized over strike in its development.
*  We just heard that the Navy is showing interest in the Ultra Hornet.
*  S. Korea rejected the F-35 in favor of the more affordable F-15SE.
*  Norway and Canada both appear to be suffering from a bit of sticker shock and estimates for the cost of the plane have swelled beyond what was originally programed.
*  LM and the Marine Corps suddenly found cost savings, when before we were being told that the program is being ran as efficiently as possible.
*  And now this story.  The Chief Weapons Buyer for the Pentagon doesn't seem to trust the numbers being put out by the Program Office.

Critical Mass?

If I didn't know better I'd swear that we're seeing a program fighting for its very life.  Have you paid attention to the advertising that LM, the Marine Corps and the Program Office is involved in when it comes to pushing the F-35?

Its almost obscene.  Danger focuses the mind and it appears that the Commandant's Office and the others are all focused like a laser right now.

I'm of the opinion that we're seeing the first real threat of program cancellation for the F-35.  We've heard talk before but judging from the reactions of those involved, shit just got real.

Critical mass has arrived with a vengeance.

8 comments :

  1. Of course they argue with it. It'd leave the Pentagon with almost an extra 300 billion to spend. That'd interfere with Dear Leaders plans to draw down our military. Better to look like money is accounted for when justifying cuts. -LP

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Pentagon effectively lowered the Navy's unmanned UCLASS requirements and turned it into a UAV that is now more suited to hunting terrorists and not suited for the deep strike role. The Navy will not be pursuing a long range deep strike UAV. The new requirements now state that it will not be stealthy enough to operate in heavily contested airspace. It can no longer carry the same payload as the F-35 internally and can no longer fly nearly as far.

    Here's the Naval Institute's bit on that: http://news.usni.org/2013/08/29/pentagon-altered-uclass-requirements-for-counterterrorism-mission?fb_source=pubv1

    I guess the Navy will now be forced to rely on the Ultra Hornet by way of politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No surprise that the pro-F35 lobby had to kill the X-47: it was a cheaper strike alternative with largely the same performance. It was politically very smart to simply channel the program into something so ineffective and far from the Navy's requirements that the USN will kill the program on its own as a cost savings measure. It will attract a lot less attention than an outright fight over it.

      DEW line has also done some good reporting on it, some of it based on the same story you linked to:
      http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/why-the-jroc-neutered-the-navys-uclass-program/

      Delete
  3. If you're interested in F-35 cost and haven't read Winslow Wheeler's series of articles on the subject, then I suggest that you go to the link and read his five pieces published recently, starting with June 3, 2013.
    http://nation.time.com/author/winslowwheeler/

    Part 1 -- The New Era of Good F-35 Feelings
    2 -- Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges
    3 -- The Deadly Empirical Data
    4 -- Different Planes, Common Problems
    5 -- On Final Approach to Fighter Fiscal Sanity

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/why-the-jroc-neutered-the-navys-uclass-program/

    Yeah, because the USA doesn't have anything in inventory to go after terrorists, sure, I believe that....

    BTW, any one heard about F22s being deployed to Middle East? Wonder if there will be pressure to use them in Syria campaign? If DoD keeps buying all these vaunted weapon systems, at some point, you have to use them....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But when you use them... You run the risk that they might not work as well as advertised!

      Better to let them gather dust and remain the "best combat system in the world" then send them into combat where they might get shot down, and then have people start asking hard questions.

      Delete
  5. @Doug. I was thinking more along the lines of what LMT wants, wouldn't it be better to show how good F22 is and just try to use that to promote how well and useful F35 would be? If we can do Syria with cruise missile and 4th gen fighters, doesn't it put a little bit of kink on how much we need F35? How many air forces out there are adversary to the US/NATO that are as capable?

    -Iran flies antiques and it's SAM system is weaker than Syrian, notwithstanding all Iran's rhetoric....most of it are upgraded HAWKS and Chinese HQ2s,etc...
    -North Korea air force is even older than Iran's and their SAM's are also older....plus we would have South Korean air force by our side...
    -Venezuela has some Sukois and SAM's but I don't expect any US invasion anytime soon now that Chavez is gone, VZ has quieted down some...
    -Cuba? Once Fidel and his brother are gone, that place is going to be more popular than Las Vegas to US tourists...
    -African continent? Maybe if Egypt falls completely apart and goes anti USA, then their air force should be good but even then, does USA have to use force there? Rest of Africa is a joke, you only need Predators to go after "terrorists"...

    So that really just leaves us with Russia and China to "deal" with if we engage in hostilities...do we really need that many F35s then? or even better, is it really what we need at all to fight Russia or China?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.