Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is up with the F-35? Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I find that a bit baffling as well. It's been proven to be a workhorse at conventional bombing with JDAMs. Fast enough to dash where it's needed, huge capacity, extended time on station, and lower CPFH than the B-52!

    I remember a previous chart examining CPFH for delivering munitions, and while drones like the Predator had the lowest CPFH per aircraft, the B-1 actually beat them out at CPFH per ton of ordnance delivered!
    I think the B-1 suffers from a severe case of bad press and rep, tbh. The B-2 is "ooaaaooo stealth bomber!!1", the B-52 is "oooaaaoo war hero, grandfather bomber yeah"... but the B-1? "what, still flies?"

    Comment


    • This article goes into some of the problems with changing the engines of the B-52.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Shinytop View Post
        This article goes into some of the problems with changing the engines of the B-52.
        Good stuff, thanks!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
          I understood the article to mean that 108 aircraft were pre-production models that were pushed out the door for political reasons. Not really ready for anything except to make the program look better.


          Ummm....no.

          They were not "pushed out the door for political reasons." They are part of what in the Acquisition world is known as the LRIP....Low Rate Initial Production. Here is the formal definition as explained by the Defense Acquisition Guidebook:



          Note the bolded sections from the excerpt from the DOD Acquisition Guidebook 5000...it is our bible.


          A PM can procure up to 10% of his total projected buy of items during LRIP. He does this for 2 reasons:

          a. To provide test articles to the user community and appropriate test commands to conduct real live operational testing of the item. Note that it has to be procured in unit sized lots...that is so it can be operationally tested. In operational testing an item is put in the hands of an real unit and run through its normal paces.

          b. To allow the vendor to test and modify his production line and capabilities in order to meet full production.

          Just Google LRIP F-35 and you will see a series of incremental contracts have been awarded by start stepping LRIPs. For a system of this complexity that is normal.

          What a lot of critics do not want to recognize are:

          1. The F-35 program is falling exactly in line with what the Acquisition Guidelines are set to do...put a capable weapon system in the hands of the warfighter.
          2. The incremental approach allows the PM to mitigate his program risks on a system which is pushing new technologies.
          3. The most different thing to do in acquisition is to get varied computer software systems to successfully integrate and work seamlessly. It is crushingly difficult. The F-35 is pushing so many boundaries in this area.

          Many of the issues with the F-22 arise from them NOT following the rules like PM JSF is doing.
          From what I have read the aircraft were pushed out to meet the guidelines you speak of in order to avoid drawing negative attention to the program (again). Due to program delays the aircraft built to meet the LRIP timetable were not satisfactorily evolved. The decision to force production has lead to the current predicament with 108 aircraft requiring extensive modifications.

          I call that a political decision. A decision that has wasted billion more dollars just to make the program appear on time.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
            Yeah. regarding the $1.45 Trillion....

            As Steve says, that is a life cycle cost. That means it is for the spares & engines, systems upgrades, crew training, training for mechanics, new tool sets for mechanics, new diagnostic equipment for maintainers and ordnance personnel, as well as the cost for the production and distribution within the supply system of all the new spares which have to be procured.
            It's a hell of a lot of money and it's only going to increase. I have no doubt it will go over 2 Trillion. Let's face it, the program is still far from complete and still may have one multibillion dollar oversight waiting to pop its head up.

            The F35 will be the most advanced fighter in the world for a long time. But the cost and delay needs to be held in the spot light. US military major acquisition programs as a rule go way over budget and it seems to be getting worse. The F35 may achieve all its design goals but only half of what was originally required will be produced. This is a huge failure of the program no matter how you try and spin it. The government and defence industry have let program cost effectiveness fall off the table. Every major program of late has seen the taxpayer pay twice the price for half the product (DDG1000 & F22). It's not good and only getting worse.

            Comment


            • The DDG1000 is an even better (worse?) example of wastage. The F-22 and -35, at least, despite problems, have their merits and advantages. The DDG1000 is a useless whale...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                From what I have read the aircraft were pushed out to meet the guidelines you speak of in order to avoid drawing negative attention to the program (again). Due to program delays the aircraft built to meet the LRIP timetable were not satisfactorily evolved. The decision to force production has lead to the current predicament with 108 aircraft requiring extensive modifications.

                I call that a political decision. A decision that has wasted billion more dollars just to make the program appear on time.
                How many folks do you know in the JSF program office?

                I know plenty and talk to them regularly.

                Yes they have had some issues...the program was poorly managed early on. But there was a thorough house cleaning and the new PM and staff are hitting all the marks and making up for lost ground.

                So it was not punished out to meet a political mark. The 108 were delivered to begin testing.

                Testing has to be budgeted and the since the operational tests uses many of the same facilities as current operational aircraft. Those schedule are done 2 to 3 years in advance and have to be tightly managed. This also determines when LRIP products are delivered.

                So I have to ask...what is your solution?

                What would you do?

                How do we improve the process?

                I tell you how...have Congress repeal many of the acquisition laws which forces us to gerrymander our productions building huge inefficiencies into the system.
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • Wow, someone speaking with actual knowledge, not BS speculation written to drive web traffic. Look at that. =)
                  Last edited by citanon; 07 Nov 17,, 00:50.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    How many folks do you know in the JSF program office?

                    I know plenty and talk to them regularly.

                    Yes they have had some issues...the program was poorly managed early on. But there was a thorough house cleaning and the new PM and staff are hitting all the marks and making up for lost ground.

                    So it was not punished out to meet a political mark. The 108 were delivered to begin testing.

                    Testing has to be budgeted and the since the operational tests uses many of the same facilities as current operational aircraft. Those schedule are done 2 to 3 years in advance and have to be tightly managed. This also determines when LRIP products are delivered.

                    So I have to ask...what is your solution?

                    What would you do?

                    How do we improve the process?

                    I tell you how...have Congress repeal many of the acquisition laws which forces us to gerrymander our productions building huge inefficiencies into the system.
                    From what I can see the bigger defence companies such as Lockheed have grown unhealthy 'bureaucracy cancers' caused by having the government as their main customer. By that I mean they have significant resources devoted to dealing with and lobbying the government and routinely employ high ranking retired service people to oversea it. A lot of defence industry focus has shifted from their product to securing government revenue, no longer selling a product but the goal of product.

                    But there is more.

                    *Stop or severely restrict the 'multi service multi mission' one size fits all design solutions and all the logistical stream lining and production savings that don't come with it. i doubt it will ever deliver. The Marine STOVL variant was a stupid idea form the start and should have been knocked on the head from the beginning as without it the program would be in much better shape.
                    *Stop the cost plus contracts. The feature wish list for the F35 grew out of control because Lockheed had no need to restrict the government's desires because an unlimited revenue stream was attached.
                    *Defence spending needs to be dissociated with job creation. Jobs are a benefit not a design requirement. Spreading the F35s component manufacture around the planet does nothing for production efficiency.

                    It also seems pretty clear that the current climate of the F35 program does not lend itself to people speaking out. A program wide gag order is definitely in play. Although I kind of sympathise with that because of the state of the media and its inability to report simple facts whilst refusing to have any idea what they are talking about.

                    it has to remembered that at the end of the F35 program their will be a very capable fighter aircraft. But it cannot be forgotten that features of the program are missing, there's not enough of them and they're extremely over budget and nearly a decade late. Otherwise everything wrong with this program will be par for the course and then some on the next.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                      The Marine STOVL variant was a stupid idea form the start and should have been knocked on the head from the beginning as without it the program would be in much better shape..
                      What's the problem with the F-35B? It is a HUGE leap in capability over the Harrier and it has proven capable of making mincemeat of F-15s in exercises. It was also the first variant to reach IOC. If I had to pick one version to label as the "problem child", I'd point at the F-35C.

                      Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                      A program wide gag order is definitely in play.
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	citation_needed.png
Views:	2
Size:	21.7 KB
ID:	1471763

                      Comment


                      • I disagree with multiservice aspect. We no longer fight wars as a single service. Hell the Coast Guard has personnel in CENTCOM...as they should. And making something for widespread use reduces single service risk and you also can enjoy price sharing. It makes us think interoperable in all instances.

                        And I don't know what the USMC solution should have been but they needed to replace the AV-8s. So what was the answer? The F4 faced a lot of the same issues yet it became an extremely capable aircraft for all 3 services.

                        As for requirements...PMs don't drive requirements. They produce materiel solution to functional requirements. Each service's capabilities developer drives what the end user needs and provides that to PM. I have been in this business since 1988 before there was an Acquisition Corps. I became a Procurement Officer right after the $750 hammers and $900 toilet seats fiascos and been living the 5000 series since their inception. I am now on my 6th Major Program.

                        I have always seen requirements creep...it cannot always be ignored. Often times its the result of better technologies or changing requirements due to threat changes...see HMMWV program. They are not all bad.

                        You stop cost plus contracting and you'll end up with Earl's Bait & Aerospace trying to build everything for us. Cost Plus allows the government to accept the risk for the vendor for being aggressive and trying new technologies. You take away Cost Plus during the pre Milestone C stage of a program and you are dead in the water. None of the big boys....the ones who can do the job since defense consolidation has about destroyed our ability to produce economically....will touch anything less.

                        You want to clean up acquisition?

                        1. Get Congress to pass a damn budget!!! Government by CRs has directly impacted the LRIP of the F-35s. You can't plan a program that way. People won't stick around if you can't promise them anything past the next fiscal quarter.

                        2. Repeal the acquisition laws which practically mandate gerrymandering of contracts.

                        3. Once contracts are awarded let PMs and LSIs work more closely than currently allowed. I can barely talk to my vendor. Look at what was able to be done with the Space Program of the 60s & 70s by allowing integrated work environments.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                          1. Get Congress to pass a damn budget!!! Government by CRs has directly impacted the LRIP of the F-35s. You can't plan a program that way. People won't stick around if you can't promise them anything past the next fiscal quarter.
                          2. Repeal the acquisition laws which practically mandate gerrymandering of contracts.
                          Yes! I second all of your motions, but particularly #1 & 2!

                          Not sure about your organization, but our contracts folks take 3-4 months to execute even small contracts. A Simplified Acquisition contract (which is anything but simple) is required for anything over $3k. Delaying our funding puts the execution of the funding in jeopardy due to the contracting timelines involved. Any O&M maintenance funds expire at the end of the FY.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JCT View Post
                            Yes! I second all of your motions, but particularly #1 & 2!

                            Not sure about your organization, but our contracts folks take 3-4 months to execute even small contracts. A Simplified Acquisition contract (which is anything but simple) is required for anything over $3k. Delaying our funding puts the execution of the funding in jeopardy due to the contracting timelines involved. Any O&M maintenance funds expire at the end of the FY.
                            So you can imagine the impacts on a $ 4.6 Billion program! Sequestration really shot us in the ass. Due to budget cuts it extended the fielding by 2 years and added over $400 million to the life cycle costs of the system.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              So you can imagine the impacts on a $ 4.6 Billion program! Sequestration really shot us in the ass. Due to budget cuts it extended the fielding by 2 years and added over $400 million to the life cycle costs of the system.
                              Excellent insights AR.

                              Also, the F35 b is looking rather smart in an age when proliferation of long range precision strike is likely to necessitate greater dispersal and austere operations going forward.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                                I disagree with multiservice aspect. We no longer fight wars as a single service. Hell the Coast Guard has personnel in CENTCOM...as they should. And making something for widespread use reduces single service risk and you also can enjoy price sharing. It makes us think interoperable in all instances.

                                And I don't know what the USMC solution should have been but they needed to replace the AV-8s. So what was the answer? The F4 faced a lot of the same issues yet it became an extremely capable aircraft for all 3 services.

                                As for requirements...PMs don't drive requirements. They produce materiel solution to functional requirements. Each service's capabilities developer drives what the end user needs and provides that to PM. I have been in this business since 1988 before there was an Acquisition Corps. I became a Procurement Officer right after the $750 hammers and $900 toilet seats fiascos and been living the 5000 series since their inception. I am now on my 6th Major Program.

                                I have always seen requirements creep...it cannot always be ignored. Often times its the result of better technologies or changing requirements due to threat changes...see HMMWV program. They are not all bad.

                                You stop cost plus contracting and you'll end up with Earl's Bait & Aerospace trying to build everything for us. Cost Plus allows the government to accept the risk for the vendor for being aggressive and trying new technologies. You take away Cost Plus during the pre Milestone C stage of a program and you are dead in the water. None of the big boys....the ones who can do the job since defense consolidation has about destroyed our ability to produce economically....will touch anything less.

                                You want to clean up acquisition?

                                1. Get Congress to pass a damn budget!!! Government by CRs has directly impacted the LRIP of the F-35s. You can't plan a program that way. People won't stick around if you can't promise them anything past the next fiscal quarter.

                                2. Repeal the acquisition laws which practically mandate gerrymandering of contracts.

                                3. Once contracts are awarded let PMs and LSIs work more closely than currently allowed. I can barely talk to my vendor. Look at what was able to be done with the Space Program of the 60s & 70s by allowing integrated work environments.
                                The F35B is an exceptional aircraft and the marines have nothing to complain about. I firmly believe that if just that aspect of the program was changed ie 1 design for the navy and airforce and a new STOVL aircraft for the marines then things would have been much, much better. An aircraft designed to suit both the airforce and navy doesn't really have to be stretched to much to cover both roles - like you said the F4 is a good example. But the STOVL capability gives you fundamental design requirements that will not be optimal for aircraft that don't need it.

                                So remove the STOVL requirement and basically you get a mach 2.0+ multirole carrier capable aircraft with all the electronic doo-dads that can out fly an F22. The marines get the F35B. The A and C models are good but there is no question that their design were severely compromised by the B model. Most obviously in the speed department. The airforce appear happy with the mach 1.6 but you can't tell me they wouldn't love mach 2+. Especially when sukhois are doing 2+. I know you can make an excellent case on why you don't need mach 2+ but at the end of the day if you have two identical aircraft but one does 1.6 and the other 2+ the faster will be pilots choice everytime. Of course you lose the non-existent cost savings that don't come with the 'one size fits all' but I reckon you'd be paying less for two new aircraft designs (the airforce and navy version having greatly improved performance) as well as not needing to cut procurement numbers or the program being as late.

                                Would it be to much to ask for the airforce and navy version to have 6 x 50 cals in the wings, shark teeth painted on the nose and a black paintjob? No? Fine then.

                                Make no mistake the government is the problem. Everything they touch turns to crap. They've got their tentacles into what was an innovative private industry and injected it with government brand lethargy and inefficiency.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X