Sunday, March 22, 2015

American Mercenary wades into the F-35 debacle...I make a minor correction to his research.



via AM..
Now Solomon has a very valid point that Congress holds responsibility for budgeting. But that doesn't excuse the Department of Defense as a whole from not taking the big stick to defense contractors who bust their budgets with no real consequences
That's just a tidbit...read it all here...now understand that I'm using American Mercenary as a foil to push my bigger agenda...I want to stick a fork in the thinking that the USMC is at fault for the F-35 catastrophe.

Required reading for the F-35 is found via The Internet Wayback Machine. 

Exhibit Number 1.  What are the roots of the F-35B?
Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) 1983-1994The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began a program in 1983 to begin looking at the technologies available to design and manufacture a follow-on supersonic replace for the AV-8 Harrier. The program, known as ASTOVL, would eventually lead become a joint U.S.-U.K. collaboration. In 1987 the results of the ASTOVL program made clear that the technologies available were not yet advanced enough to generate a replacement that the U.S. and U.K. would have been satisfied with. At this time, DARPA secretly approached the Lockheed Skunk Works in the hopes that they would be able to develop an aircraft like they had hoped would have appeared from the first phase of ASTOVL. Lockheed told DARPA that they had some ideas that could be matured and that, if they were successful would meet the goals that DARPA was trying to achieve. At the same time, DARPA continued with ASTOVL Phase II as a cover for the covert work being done at the Skunk Works.
TOP OF PAGEi. STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) 1987-1994In the late 1980s the Lockheed Skunk Works was involved in a classified, non-acknowledged program with NASA Ames that looked into the feasibility of designing a stealthy supersonic STOVL fighter. This was a cooperative program that utilized the assets of NASA (wind tunnels, personnel, super-computers, etc.) along with the expertise of the Lockheed Skunk Works in designing stealthy air vehicles. The results from this highly classified program proved that a SSF could be successfully flown. Management at the Lockheed Skunk Works was convinced that the SSF design could be sold to both the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. (The U.S. Navy (NAVAIR) is the procuring office for Marine Corps aircraft.) The Skunk Works proposed a teaming between the USAF and the USN. The services agreed, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the services and the SSF program began to come out of the black.
Exhibit Number 2.  If the USMC had a separate program how did they become merged with Navy and Air Force efforts? 
What is known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program was originally known as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program. The goal of the JAST program was not to have developed a new aircraft, but instead it was to mature the technologies that a new series of tactical aircraft could use.
JAST was chartered to mature technologies, develop requirements, and demonstrate concepts for affordable next-generation joint strike warfare. As JAST plans took shape, it became apparent that JAST would be funding one or more concept demonstrator aircraft starting in 1996–about the time the ASTOVL program planned to enter its Phase III (full-scale flight demonstrators). The ASTOVL project, as an advanced concept for a future joint-service strike/fighter, appeared consistent with the JAST charter. It was therefore agreed by the management of both programs, that JAST would become the U.S. service “sponsor” for the flight demonstration phase of ASTOVL, if Phase II were successful and if the concept appeared to be able to satisfy the requirements of at least two of the three U.S. services participating in JAST. However, FY95 budget legislation passed in October 1994 by the U.S. Congress directed that ASTOVL be merged into JAST immediately.
I rest my case.  This meme that Sweetman started MUST stop (and yeah I put this on Sweetman's desk because he's the first person to make this accusation.  I remember it well, because we went round and round about this when I was a rabid supporter of the F-35 program).

You can blame the Marine Corps for a number of things.  We're big boys.  We can take it.  But if you're going to try and saddle MY Marine Corps with the F-35 debacle then think again.

Blame your Congress Critter for this mess!  NOT the United States Marine Corps! 

Sidenote.  Make sure you head over to Internet Way Back Machine to read the now dead official JSF Program website.  I've made screen copies because I have a feeling that it will disappear even from that site soon.

15 comments:

  1. So here is something I've never quite nailed down....say the STOVL version was affordable, is it a worthy successor to the Harrier in terms of payload, range & general performance? (Dump any notion that it replaces the F-16 et al, I'm just thinking of the Harrier)

    ReplyDelete
  2. ok. you just hit on something. i think thats the thing that most annoys Aviation Experts like Sweetman.


    as a Harrier replacement only. the F-35 makes sense in my opinion. those same experts would still question the operating concept but there is no question that it will be better than the Harrier. i once made the prediction that the B model would eventually be the best selling version.


    but even as a pure Harrier replacement it does many things wrong. i think its obvious that the lift fan solution is just a developmental dead end. it makes no sense and vectored thrust out of that huge engine just makes all kinds of sense to me. additionally in the Marine Corps and for that matter the British Navy's way of doing things i don't know how valuable stealth is...so that would lower the costs. and then finally in the USMC/RN concept i don't think you would see many of the other gee whiz tech going into it.


    long story short the F-35B is better than the Harrier but its waaaaaaaaaaaaay more expensive too...and that is the real problem. it just costs too fucking much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With the benefit of hindsight they should have run the programs in parallel, Airforce and Navy versions developed together (airframe engines etc but with the navy version slightly beefed up with a hook and folding wings etc for carrier ops) and a separate V/STOL airframe and engine combo, but used the same radar, ecm and other avionic etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But I am wondering why isn't the F-35B a separate program.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We don't know that the B is better than anything until it completes operational test and evaluation, scheduled for April 2019. In fact the Pentagon is breaking the law by fielding the F-35 prior to this event. 10 USC § 2399 - Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition programs
    The Secretary of Defense shall provide that a covered major defense acquisition program or a covered designated major subprogram may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until initial operational test and evaluation of ther program or subprogram is completed.(currently April 2019)

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's interesting that they've pulled the whole JSF website, like they've been totally taken over by Lockheed (which has always issued JSF press releases). I first noticed this when I went looking for the leadership page where I had previously noticed that Bogdan (XO) nominally reports to Stackley (Navy acquisition) and the page was no more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Solomon, no issues with the additional information published, it doesn't contradict anything I wrote. You are very correct that I should have specifically stated that Congress dictated the JSF program as a consolidation of existing programs, the same way they forced the conslidation of the light transport aircraft that the USAF took over as the C-27J which only SOCOM got to keep. Notice that the JLTV is championed by SOCOM as well... Some pockets are deeper than others...

    I think Boeing's X-32 solution, a joint frame for the Navy and Air Force, with a separate third frame for the USMC, was the more honest answer in the contractor bidding. Anyone willing to take bets on the USAF going back to Congress to get F-15 "Silent Eagle" replacements for F-15s nearing end of life in the next decade? As a "stop gap" until the F-35 reaches IOC?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Speaking of organization, Lockheed employs retired officers as program managers. They avoid publicity -- this is the best list I can come up with.

    Lockheed F-35 Program Managers
    Air Force
    Maj Gen James "Sandy" Sandstrom, USAF (ret)
    Navy
    Cmdr Stephen Weatherspoon, USN (ret)
    Marines
    Col Art Tomasetti, USMC (ret)

    There are probably others, including:
    Gen Gary North, USAF (ret), Vice President for Customer Requirements

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would never blame the Corps. I would blame a cabal inside USMC-air that thinks the F-35 contributes anything to their mission. And, unfortunately, top leadership in those USMC-air slots have been getting incredible amounts of press time pushing this nonsense with little or no evaluation of accuracy. Further, this same cabal using the brave Marine riflemans' long traditions of battlefield accomplishments as a marketing wedge. Despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would take the Harrier warts and all vs. the F-35B warts and all. And, while I obviously have no say in it. for those that think the Harrier mission was important, a Harrier III would have been a worthwhile thing to do. While....letting the F-35A, B and C,.... prove themselves as YF-35A, YF-35B, YF-35C, until things were figured out (or not) and if those YFs did prove themselves, they could then move on to well thought out, production prototypes ready to prove their worth measured against Milestone-C. All in all, very sad. Today, the way ahead is full of pain. One consolation prize is that today, there are some quick, precision guided munitions, that don't collect flight pay and can, save Marines lives.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Recommended reading.


    http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/F-35_DOT%26E_20150312.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sol, what's your opinion if the USMC were to dump the F-35B and go with the X-32 design. Keeping the F-35A & F-35C with the Air force and Navy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. i'm of the opinion that the USMC should just piggyback on the Navy for the carrier mission and we keep the Harrier flying until we get a REAL replacement. we keep everything from the F-35 that was useful and we let the tech mature or do a ACV program and only use tech that is already mature.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So what about the F-35A & F-35C. Do we allow them to continue or do we keep them in a R&D Development. My thinking is that Boeing should bring back the X-32 as a pure VSTOL Strike fighter for the Marines and Royal Navy. Just leave the F-35A for the Air force and F-35C for the Navy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's what I was thinking. Boeing should revive the X-32 for the Marines as pure VSTOL Strike fighter. Keep the F-35A & F-35C in the R&D stage to work out the kinks. In the mean time, for the Navy, bring the Back up F/A-18 Super Hornet to Advance Super Hornet standard. The Air force can start working on the F-15 Silent Eagle and the Block 60 F-16 that UAE has.

    ReplyDelete

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