via AINOnline.
Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and the Eurofighter Typhoon are back in play for South Korea’s F-X III fighter requirement after that country made a sudden decision to reject the last remaining contender, Boeing’s F-15SE Silent Eagle, and restart the procurement process.Why even have a contest?
An executive committee of South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), chaired by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, met on September 24 and determined that the F-15SE “is not suitable as it lacks stealth features,” according to Yonhap News Agency. The defense ministry opposed the procurement agency’s selection process because it prioritized cost over combat capability, the news service said. A majority of the committee’s members “agreed that the South Korean Air Force needs fifth-generation combat jets to keep pace with the latest trends and to deter provocations by North Korea,” defense ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok told Yonhap.
Why is the Eurofighter and Boeing playing this game?
Under the table deal making...industrial blackmail on an international scale...and phony pricing has already determined the outcome of this contest.
Lockheed Martin, the USMC and USAF have rigged this contest. They want the price low and will do whatever it takes to see that the F-35 wins.
If the S. Koreans were smart they would face facts. They're Lockheed Martin's bitch. A proud people have been reduced to lap dogs for a corporation. Its sad, but its true. Don't feel bad. The US Marine Corps feels your pain.
National pride and the fear of being left behind in the realm of pursuing 5th gen fighter. SK looks around, all of her major neighbors are actively acquiring 5th gen aircraft. Japan already signed on with F-35. China and Russia are developing their own birds. I guess that F-15SE just ain't sexy enough. You don't want to bring a Motorola to party when everybody else carries iPhone or Galaxy.
ReplyDeleteBut the iPhone and Galaxy actually work.
DeleteWell, it was the sad case of a bunch of appointed civilians determining what kind of jet the air force needed, against the air force generals begging that they were perfectly fine with the Silent Eagle(Or any combat-capable jets delivered by 2017) and needed it ASAP.
DeleteIn order to illustrate their need for new jets, the air force actually drove a newly retired F-4 sitting on a trailer over the highway in broad daylight yesterday, to generate publicity and illustrate a point for retiring jet problem.
The civilians told the generals they will get as good as an aircraft as the civilians are willing to buy for them. It was the generals that insisted that a stealth developmental plane is what is needed and the civilians just need to find the money to pay whatever it costs.
Deletenews report:
ReplyDeleteSouth Korea and Lockheed are hoping to sign a letter of agreement in the next six to nine months, to meet South Korea’s deadline of receiving its first fighter by the end of 2017.
The F-35 turkey could well be dead by then. The recent DOD-IG report on 719 quality problems caught a lot of attention in European media. Or later, either way the result will be the same.
That's not going to happen, because the opposition party with nearly 50% of the seats backs the Silent Eagle and is launching an investigation into why the sole valid candidate Silent Eagle was voted down, causing a massive delay.
DeleteIf there was another qualified bid, then that could be put up for a quick vote, but no amount of rule bending can make the F-35 qualified, and rewriting the rules take time. In other word, the Defense Ministry which took over the F-X from the DAPA(Which is a civilian agency) is cornered.
--The report is 10 months old
ReplyDelete--The report deals mostly with paperwork issues, not actual parts
--They have already addressed almost all of the "issues" and have a dozen or so left
*The IG report is dated Sep 30, 2013.
Delete*Upon reading the draft report, the JPO agreed with most of the findings but said they couldn't assure quality.
"On August 23, 2013, the Joint Program Office agreed with eight recommendations, partially agreed with two, and disagreed with one. The Joint Program Office stated that it does not have the resources to perform process proofing of all critical processes nor has the responsibility or resources to perform requirement flow down verification throughout the F-35 supply chain.
*Specifically the IG recommended what should be a no-brainer, an independent QA effort reporting to the Program Manager.
The Joint Program Office disagreed stating that the Defense Contract Management Agency performs the role of the independent quality assurance organization for the F-35. IG: "We disagree because the Defense Contract Management Agency is not accountable for program quality assurance goals."
*also: “Our review of the JSF Program Air System Block Plan showed that the plan had not been updated since August 13, 2008, and does not reflect current block planning defining Air Systems capabilities for the F-35 Program. As a result, there is no authoritative document defining current and planned F-35 software capabilities.”
*The bomb:--The F-35 Program did not sufficiently implement or flow down technical and quality management system requirements to prevent the fielding of nonconforming hardware and software.
http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-140.pdf
And judging by the JPO reaction, they won't fully correct the situation. As I commented, this sorry situation has gotten a lot pf media attention in Europe -- I looked at Italian and Dutch newspapers specifically (with the help of google-translate).
The report was released in Sep 13, but the data that it covers ended in Dec'12. Here is the quote from the link.
Delete"Lockheed Martin Corp has resolved many quality problems on the $392 billion F-35 fighter jet program since a troubling audit by the Pentagon inspector general's office last year, top U.S. government and industry officials said on Monday.
The officials were commenting on a report on the year-long in depth assessment by the inspector general, which was completed in December 2012, but not released until Monday."
Another telling thing about the report is this quote:
"The report said the issues could lead to "nonconforming hardware, less reliable aircraft and increased cost," but said the F-35 program office was implementing corrective actions."
In other words, it is pointing out paperwork issue that it says MIGHT lead to actual problems down the line.
Here is the quote on the solutions:
"Of 343 quality problems identified by the IG assessment, some 269 - or 78 percent - had been addressed and closed through specific action plans, and remedies were under way for all but 10 items, where specific plans still needed approval, said Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office."
The fact that they have resolved 78% of the issues proves that they have been made aware of the issues for a long time and the the problems that exist today are not nearly as bad as the report (and the reporting of the report) make them out to be.
Too bad all that talent is working to build the wrong jet.
DeleteBtw, where did you come up with this line?
Delete"And judging by the JPO reaction, they won't fully correct the situation."
Their official reply was:
--269 (78%) of the issues have been addressed AND resolved
--64 items have action plans in place and are being addressed
--10 items are awaiting approval of the action plan to take
So, which "situation" is not being corrected?
This may come as a shock -- I don't believe the JPO nor L-M because there is no check on their claims. What we do have is the IG report -- and there's no reason to disbelieve it. The fact that JPO doesn't have an independent QA office reporting to the PM, but depends on L-M & DCMA has led to significant F-35 reliability problems and according to the report, in my comment above, the JPO FLAT REFUSED to alter their wrongful procedures.
DeleteRegarding the Dec 2012 cut-off, that's bogus info from L-M. Lockheed Martin issued a statement as well that said the DOD IG's report is "based on data that's more than 16 months old and [a] majority of the Corrective Action Requests identified have been closed." The DOD IG report, hover, said it conducted its audit during fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
Pentagon chief weapons tester J. Michael Gilmore has said that F-35 costs are rising -- a major problem is cost -- because of frequent fixes to problems reported during flight tests and warned the "most challenging portions" of the testing have not yet begun. The program is not meeting reliability growth targets.
Analysis of data through May 2012 shows that flight test and Lots 1 through 3 aircraft demonstrated lower reliability than those predictions. Demonstrated Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure for the F-35A was 5.95 hours, for the F-35B was 4.16 hours, and for the F-35C was 6.71 hours. The F-35 program required an air abort rate no greater than 1,000 aborts per 100,000 flight hours but in late 2012 the aircraft had an air abort rate of 3,600 air aborts per 100,000 flying hours. Mission aborts while the plane is still on the ground (ground aborts) were also a serious problem: one in seven sortie attempts resulted in a ground abort.
You are aware that FY 2013 started in October of 2012.. right?
DeleteIn the Results in Brief section labeled “Management Comments and Our Response” (and in the body of the report). The JPO told the DOD IG as recently as August 23, 2013 that it was not its job to “ensure contractual compliance to prevent nonconformance” with system requirements or “to update the contract if the requirements are deficient.”
DeleteThat is stunning -- that the JPO refuses to be responsible for F-35 quality control. This we don't give a damn attitude of course went on down to the F-35 production on the foor and is probably still true given the JPO attitude.
“On average, at final assembly each aircraft has 200+ corrective actions requiring rework or repair. The DoD IG team’s overall conclusion is that LMA’s, Fort Worth, Texas quality management system and the integrity of the F-35 product are jeopardized by a lack of attention to detail, inadequate process discipline, and a ‘we will catch it later’ culture. We believe the quality assurance culture at LMA, Fort Worth, Texas must improve and that robust technical oversight by the government [found elsewhere in the report to be lacking] is required to ensure program performance and mission success.” --Appendix C on page 77
i've been monitoring this discussion and i'm surprised at Spudman. this report was just released to the public. why are you attempting to defend LM and the Program Office?
Deleteadditionally, why are you so willing to take LM's word on anything to do with the F-35? they've lied consistently since they won the bid. quite honestly, the X-32 might have been butt ugly but it would be in service today.
additionally i don't understand why you aren't outraged by the costs of this program. it smacks of all the worst practices in military procurement and its going to be killed. they're pumping them out like candy now because reality is reality. people were still buying houses when evidence and common sense told them that the housing market was about to crash. the same can be said for this program. i can feel it and so can you.
Solomon
DeleteThere is nothing to be surprised since Spudman is a famous F-35 fanboy who will defend the F-35 under all circumstances.
In addition, the USMC's insistence on the X-35 during the JSF competition was the reason we ended up with the F-35 today. The USAF had no preferences while the USN didn't want to be involved in the JSF program in the first place. It was the USMC going Gung Ho over the X-35's superior VTOL capability while overlooking Lockheed Martin's cost overruns and late deliveries during the JSF contest that led to the X-35 win, and the rest is history.
DeleteI really don't understand why the USMC thought they needed the X-35's VTOL capability, while the X-32 had the Harrier's VTOL performance which was not exactly excellent, but was good enough.
Yes, that 50-inch fan started a cascade of problems including--
Delete--wider fuselage to accommodate interior bomb bays causes increased drag and decreases acceleration, fuel efficiency and flying range.
--limits plane to one engine
--blocks the rear view from the cockpit
--increases weight
Actually no one's talking about the F-35 or the Silent Eagle over there right now, as the attention is being focused on the KFX which is now getting funded for a full scale development.
ReplyDeleteSome people are afraid that the KFX funding is a smoke screen intended to distract the public attention away from the troubled F-X contest by the government, as people are now fighting over twin EJ200 vs single F110 engine options for the KFX instead of the F-35 vs Silent Eagle vs Typhoon.
There's a contention that ROK wanted the JSF all along and opened the competition only to get the JSF price down, which failed. chosun.com article--
ReplyDeleteOfficial Incompetence Botched Fighter Jet Selection
Fighter jets would be crucial in taking out North Korean long-range artillery and nuclear and missile facilities in an emergency, and a shortage poses serious security problems.
There can be little doubt that bureaucratic incompetence is to blame. The aim of the F-X acquisition program was to buy 60 state-of-the-art fighter jets. The Air Force naturally requested a stealth fighter, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 was the only aircraft that fit the requirement.
But the Defense Acquisition Program Administration wanted to put the project out to tender to lower the purchase price, and eased the stealth requirements to let more conventional fighter aircraft join the race. The ploy backfired. Lockheed Martin is apparently not allowed to lower the F-35's price tag by itself, and when DAPA realized this, it scurried to secure a bigger budget, but by then it was too late.
Although stealth fighters are not the answer to all problems, just the fact that South Korea has them would be a strong deterrent for potential North Korean aggression. Japan and China plan to get their hands on stealth fighters soon, so it would be difficult for DAPA and the government to convince the public to spend so much tax money to buy anything else.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/09/25/2013092501618.html
Don Bacon
DeleteThat contention is incorrect because all the government and military officials did vote for the Silent Eagle at the selection committee. What they didn't anticipate was the civilian panel members being influenced by Lockheed Martin's massive anti-Silent Eagle publicity campaign using hired publicists, which was flooding prime time TV spots for over a month before the selection vote. These civilians decided that they knew what the ROKAF needed better than the ROKAF generals and vetoed the decision, so all hell broke lose.
FYI, the ROKAF assumed the formal selection of Silent Eagle last month and was preparing a request to buy a squandron of Growlers to accompany the Silent Eagles and F-15Ks, but that plan too got derailed too. Right now, the only thing that's actuallty moving forward is the KFX project which is entering the full scale development phase next year.
Maybe. Maybe not.
DeleteDefense Ministry Pushes Stealth Bomber Purchase - Mar 9, 2011
The Defense Ministry officially announced plans to purchase stealth bombers capable of avoiding radar detection to counter the threat of North Korea's so-called asymmetrical warfare capabilities.
Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin told reporters on Tuesday the ministry will push for a stealth fighter acquisition project as part of the ongoing F-X fighter program.
The third phase of the F-X program envisages buying 60 high-performance fighters such as the F-15K from the U.S. from around 2015. The Air Force wanted the third phase to start this year, but budget pressure and Cheong Wa Dae's resistance to hasty implementation of an acquisition program worth trillions of won have led to delays.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/03/09/2011030901284.html
You go, Audrey. news report:--
ReplyDeleteAn 89-year-old Toronto woman is willing to go to jail over Statistics Canada's choice of number crunchers.
It's not that Audrey Tobias detests numbers or math nerds. Rather, she hates the company that is processing the census data for the government agency: Lockheed Martin.
On Thursday, she will take the stand to explain to a judge why she refused to fill out the form.
"It's simple. I cannot support anything that has anything to do with Lockheed Martin," she said.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4134418-woman-89-ready-to-go-to-jail-over-census-processed-by-weapons-manufacturer/
which is why Lockheed Martin needs to separate its other divisions from the F-35 poste haste. this one program is going to be an albatross around that company's neck for years...even longer if by chance they get it into production.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteWhy should Lockheed? They make money on every F-35 sold, whether it is 30 or 300 per year. The burden is up to the US government to pick the contractor with a best track record in terms of on time and on budget delivery, so the past track record and project management skills should be at least 50% of total scoring so that a bad faith incompetent contractor like Lockheed Martin never gets another shot at fleecing the US tax payers in the future.
its in LM best interests to not have the entire company painted with the taint of the F-35. its just that simple. ask Grumman what happened after the A-12 fiasco.
DeleteAs history has shown in the past, LM and JPO statements don't mean the same thing as "fixed".
ReplyDeleteSouth Korean defense officials are known to have both offered bribes to win export deals and accepted bribes for import deals. Wonder how much this reversal cost LockMart...
ReplyDeletePatrick
Delete15 years ago, yes. 2013, Definately not, at least not for imports. That is what the DAPA was for,
Whats the point of this 'stealth' protection for the bomber when:
ReplyDelete1.) The x-band stealth optimization (what fighters traditionally use but not soley in the case of pakfa and future planes) doesn't counter large ground based radars which aren't X-band.
2.) Even if it did surface radar are growing increasingly more powerful and will continue to do so due to better fabrication technologies throught the lifetime of an airframe making such 'stealth' of dubious use against surface units.
3.) The Plane does not have a stealthy profile from underneath and behind.
4.) Stealth is not part of US SEAD strategy to defeat SAM systems, the claims that 'stealth' are needed because of cold war SAMs is a lie.
5.) At 250M USD each it is not cost effective.