The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[TaiidanTomcat]

Stealth is so last year. What they really need is a souped up 4th gen aircraft.

Have they thought about taking a mig 21 and adding new electronics?


It just goes to show that other militaries will be upgrading and adding new capabilities they dont seam to be mentally stuck in the we are great now so we will be great forever mirage. You would almost think the struggle for superiority is constant and difficult. Nah awesomeness is assured.

 

[LowObservable]

Stealth is so last year. What they really need is a souped up 4th gen aircraft.

Apparently they agree.

 

[LowObservable]

AF - You see, that's where you and I lack Higher Understanding.

In the F-35 world, if the jet flies at night, or two or more of one or another variant manage to get airborne at the same time and fly in formation, that's "news."

If the anchor customer, who according to the program of record is due to buy more jets than the all other customers put together, testifies to Congress about plans that clearly involve chopping its pre-2030 deliveries and sustained production rate by 40 per cent, and starts pumping out RFPs and requirements for said plans, that's "an editorial."

 

[sferrin]

Stealth is so last year. What they really need is a souped up 4th gen aircraft.

Apparently they agree.

Yeah, I guess that explains why they're working on two types of stealth fighter. :

 

[sferrin]

AF - You see, that's where you and I lack Higher Understanding.

In the F-35 world, if the jet flies at night, or two or more of one or another variant manage to get airborne at the same time and fly in formation, that's "news."

In the Eurocanard world if a new powerpoint is published describing a fantasy future mod it's not only "news" it warrants accolades over on Ares. LOL

 

[1st503rdSGT]

No 2K JDAM, Only two 1K JDAMs.

Well, that still seems good enough. If only the JSF requirements had been that sensible.

 

[GTX]

I dunno, there is little to spin when you look at a calendar and milestones occur later than scheduled. But what do i know, I'm just an engineer that looks at time as a continuum that goes in one direction only...

I believe you simply see what you want to see.

As for the engineer comment...well sorry to probably upset your preconception of me, but I too have an Engineering degree.

In regard to the editorial (sorry Bill, but for me, "news" involves something new, not simply a rehash of old information in a new wrapping with a heavy dose of bias : ), I suggest you apply a critical engineering eye to it and actually look at what was written. Please point out to us where the new information is?

 

[GTX]

In the F-35 world, if the jet flies at night, or two or more of one or another variant manage to get airborne at the same time and fly in formation, that's "news."

If the anchor customer, who according to the program of record is due to buy more jets than the all other customers put together, testifies to Congress about plans that clearly involve chopping its pre-2030 deliveries and sustained production rate by 40 per cent, and starts pumping out RFPs and requirements for said plans, that's "an editorial."

Sorry mate, but for me news = Information about recent events or happenings (i.e. something new). An editorial = an opinion piece.

 

[Triton]

This isn't an opinion piece, looks like Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, deputy director of the Joint Strike Fighter program office for the past five weeks, and designated successor to VAdm Dave Venlet, isn't happy.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:16281529-8b87-4942-8aca-099f3abaf493&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

 

[GTX]

"It shouldn't take 11-12 months to negotiate a contract with someone we've been doing business with for ten or 11 years." - Agree wholeheartedly!!! However may I also point out that it 'takes two to tango'. By this I mean, the contract negotiations for each LRIP that have been painfully drawn out are between at least two sides here. To assume or imply that all the delay is on Lockheed Martin's side is an unfair and incorrect proposition! Or do you believe that private companies should simply roll over and take what ever a government customer wants regardless of your own interests?

As for the rest, well I would appreciate seeing an actual transcript of what was said rather than taking the edited version of a well known F-35 Detractor. It is all to easy to take one or two comments and spin a whole story out of them. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions in the media...in some cases even to the point of the story conveying the exact opposite of what may have actually occurred.

 

[LowObservable]

Sure, GTX, go ahead and wait for the other accounts.


They may also include how Bogdan said that flight test sorties, hours and test points are not a good metric. Or his thinly veiled threat to cut LRIP further if the price doesn't start moving in the right direction. Or... well, you get the picture.


Overall, the best he said is that the plan is "executable" as long as a lot of things get changed.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Or his thinly veiled threat to cut LRIP further if the price doesn't start moving in the right direction.

That sure is scary. I betcha the persona he shows when the media is around is the exact same as when he is behind closed doors, problem solving.

I bet he cancels the whole thing, thats how you move up in the military, by killing programs. Nothing says "success" Like taking charge of program and then destroying it within your first year.

Its the same "Things are going to different with me in charge" speech I have gotten dozens of times. So much fire and brimstone... first time for one of those Bill? Did he threaten to "turn the car around unless you kids knock it off back there" ? I'm sorry I wasn't there in person to check my watch every couple minutes and let my mind wander about what I need to do when I get home.

I'm happy the General is unhappy. If he walked in there smiles and sunshine you would be the first to call him "clueless" and "in over his head"

The Marine Generals have been ruthlessly positive, and I know you don't think much of them or their cheery attitudes. On that note, Marine Commandant has much more sway politically. Bogden may run the Program, but three other services are running the show.

Worst case scenario, he helps get the F-35 in production his own way. You do realize all these guys are trying to make the program succeed rather than kill it right Bill? The end game is the production and success of the F-35. If you are hoping for the General that walks in there grounds the fleet and requests termination of the program don't hold your breath.

Its a dog and pony show, He is probably just talking tough until Lockheed agrees to hire him as a consultant when he retires LOL All these guys are on the payroll amiright?

 

[Triton]

Bloomberg Business Week gives a similar account:

Source:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-17/air-force-official-slams-lockheed-martin-on-f-35-program

 

[Triton]

As does Defense News:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120917/DEFREG02/309170015/Nominated-F-35-Program-Head-Raps-Relations-Lockheed?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

[jsport]

"Its a dog and pony show, He is probably just talking tough until Lockheed agrees to hire him as a consultant when he retires LOL All these guys are on the payroll amiright?"


absolutely...drain tank, replace lid, shake, remove lid, repeat process ... the West stays ahead how long?

 

[LowObservable]

DM - clearly the other media are part of the plot as well. GTX and TT, who were not there, know better.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

DM - clearly the other media are part of the plot as well. GTX and TT, who were not there, know better.

Which is a funny accusation considering how quickly you dismiss postive reports from pilots that have actually flown the freaking airplane.

Ironically when lockheed says something its "talk is cheap" and when the General says something its "You can take those words to the bank"

 

[sferrin]

DM - clearly the other media are part of the plot as well. GTX and TT, who were not there, know better.

Which is a funny accusation considering how quickly you dismiss postive reports from pilots that have actually flown the freaking airplane.

They're all LM shills you neophyte. All the honest pilots work for EADS, Dassault, and SAAB.

 

[AeroFranz]

seriously, we can add another 125 pages of thread without writing another word - we just write the link to the posts where a certain assertion was made. In less than a week we will get to circular references...


In this case, we have already explained in numerous instances how the objectivity of a person making a statement is subject to reasonable doubt when said person has a vested interest in the issue. I'm not saying EADS, SAAB, and Eurofighter pilots are better in that regard. How long would they keep their job if they talked trash of their mounts?
Similarly, military pilots have careers, and are careful not to offend anyone above them who wishes to see the program succeed regardless of its merits.

 

[sferrin]

seriously, we can add another 125 pages of thread without writing another word - we just write the link to the posts where a certain assertion was made. In less than a week we will get to circular references...


In this case, we have already explained in numerous instances how the objectivity of a person making a statement is subject to reasonable doubt when said person has a vested interest in the issue. I'm not saying EADS, SAAB, and Eurofighter pilots are better in that regard. How long would they keep their job if they talked trash of their mounts?
Similarly, military pilots have careers, and are careful not to offend anyone above them who wishes to see the program succeed regardless of its merits.

Interesting how info from EADS, Dassault, and SAAB is treated like gospel in some quarters while the same type of material from LM is trashed. And they wonder why their objectivity is questioned.

 

[GTX]

. GTX and TT, who were not there, know better.

Excuse me?? I know you must be all giddy after hearing these sorts of comments from Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan but please do calm down a little and actually have reread of what I wrote Bill: "...I would appreciate seeing an actual transcript of what was said rather than taking the edited version of a well known F-35 Detractor..."

As for the rest, I make absolute no apology for asking for the actual comments from Maj. Gen. Bogdan rather than to simply take what you have reported in your article. We are quite experienced with your apparent intense disdain for the F-35 and thus anything from you needs to be treated with appropriate caution. In fact, I would like to see if you have ever written anything positive about the program or the aircraft at all.

Now as to the comments Maj. Gen. Bogdan has made, it does appear to me that he is very much wanting to 'lay down the law' and to set down on the record the problems, as he sees them, with the Program as he takes over...and thus trying to come in hard. I have seen similar before and would once again say that there is nothing new in what he has said.

You will not hear anyone on the Industry side (up to and including LM) who is happy with the way that things such as the LRIP contract negotiation have been drawn out (in fact look back at my Reply #1371 on pg 92 of this thread where I said exactly that). Once again though, I would simply reiterate that it takes 'two to tango'. To try to lay all the blame at the door of LM is unfair and incorrect.

Nor will you find anyone in LM or other industry happy with the technical issues that have been discovered (in testing mind you - where you want to find them!!!). Of course people want to deliver a perfect solution first time around. Unfortunately in the real world , despite your best endeavours, that rarely happens. Sorry, but that's how things are.

Likewise, do you really believe that the companies are not trying their darnedest to hit target prices and the like. There is certainly no one rolling around making a huge profit in all this. Unfortunately though, wishing for it does not simply make it happen. Companies are constrained in what they can deliver re pricing, especially in hard economic times with small production runs...as has also been covered before.

At the end of the day though, I will still stand by what I have said many times over: The Military Forces/Governments wanting the F-35 want it because they have a need and also believe that the F-35 will meet that need. After all, are you seeing the wholesale abandonment of the program by the partner nations? Are you hearing the pilots who have flown it complaining about its performance?

Some of us here want to support that need and to deliver a successful product - something that I believe we are doing and will continue to do. This is also a product that I firmly believe will be an outstanding combat platform in the future. Unfortunately, some here (usually without a vested interest in the program) seem to want nothing more than to have that 'notch on their belt' and thus relish in every chance to pull it down. Of course the fact that there is no real alternative out there and the impact on the Air Forces concerned and the industries involved would be severely impacted doesn't worry them.

Of course, if I am mistaken, please point out the error of my ways...as I am sure you will want to. :

 

[Triton]

The F-35 program is years behind schedule and over budget. When Major General Bogdan says "there is no more money or no more time in the development of this program. We will not go back and ask for anymore."

Further, Bogdan says "the relationship between Lockheed Martin, the JPO, and the stakeholders is the worst I've ever seen -- and I've been in some bad ones," said Bogdan. "I guarantee you: we will not succeed on this program if we do not get past that."

The problems may be fixable, but the program still has major problems and are cause for concern. Should we take it on faith that Lockheed Martin, the JPO, and stakeholders will fix these problems as we hear about further delays and further cost overruns?

 

[GTX]

So what exactly are you proposing? It's all well and good to go on about supposed problems (which is easy), but what are you suggesting be done instead?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The F-35 program is years behind schedule and over budget. When Major General Bogdan says "there is no more money or no more time in the development of this program. We will not go back and ask for anymore."

Ive actually heard that a lot over the years

Further, Bogdan says "the relationship between Lockheed Martin, the JPO, and the stakeholders is the worst I've ever seen -- and I've been in some bad ones," said Bogdan. "I guarantee you: we will not succeed on this program if we do not get past that."

Child please, compared to the Osprey the JSF is dream.

It seems to me he is just trying to once again let anyone who listen know "Theres a new sheriff in town" I've heard that speech a lot in my life. It is what it is, no matter how much he yells or screams the program is where it is, and its his job to get it to a better place. once again, its his job to see the F-35 succeed so I am in the "whatever" camp while others seem to think this is like an earth quake. Is it that rare to have a pissy General around?

Suddenly the biggest military program in history hinges on a General's mood ring? Are you kidding me? He's mad so what?

 

[LowObservable]

Let me help GTX out here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-slams-lockheed-over-f-35-2012-9

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/17/f_35s_biggest_problems_software_and_bad_relationships

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/09/18/nominated-f-35-acquisition-chief-blasts-lockheed-martin/

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/17/4266805/air-force-official-criticizes.html

http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/17/f-35-programs-relationship-with-lockheed-worst-ive-ever-seen/

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120917/DEFREG02/309170015/Nominated-F-35-Program-Head-Raps-Relations-Lockheed?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Obviously all biased. Nothing new or out of the ordinary to report.

And the new program boss is a posturing popinjay because a forum troll who claims to be a Marine says so.

Quite frankly, this has all become a distraction. The fanbois, Walts and frauds can all be happy that they have done their little bit to perpetuate the mismanagement of this program, and thereby waste more money and - inevitably - damage the West's military power.

There's work to be done, so you can all continue to pat one another on the back without my further assistance here.

 

[sferrin]

There's work to be done, so you can all continue to pat one another on the back without my further assistance here.

No kidding. You need to head on back to Ares to tell the world how we would be better off with old 4th gen aircraft because that would be so much better. : What with stealth being old fashioned and that. Oh wait, it's only old fashioned if it's an American aircraft. If it's Chinese it's a world beater and what the US should have built, and if Europe rolled one out you'd have to breath into a paper bag to keep from hyperventilating yourself into a heart attack.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Let me help GTX out here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-slams-lockheed-over-f-35-2012-9

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/17/f_35s_biggest_problems_software_and_bad_relationships

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/09/18/nominated-f-35-acquisition-chief-blasts-lockheed-martin/

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/17/4266805/air-force-official-criticizes.html

http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/17/f-35-programs-relationship-with-lockheed-worst-ive-ever-seen/

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120917/DEFREG02/309170015/Nominated-F-35-Program-Head-Raps-Relations-Lockheed?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Obviously all biased. Nothing new or out of the ordinary to report.

And the new program boss is a posturing popinjay because a forum troll who claims to be a Marine says so.

Quite frankly, this has all become a distraction. The fanbois, Walts and frauds can all be happy that they have done their little bit to perpetuate the mismanagement of this program, and thereby waste more money and - inevitably - damage the West's military power.

There's work to be done, so you can all continue to pat one another on the back without my further assistance here.

Tell ya what Bill, lets make it a rule then that we no longer scream "bias!" whenever someone posts something. So we have to take your reports seriously, along with what Boeing says, but that means when we post a pilot interview or a Lockmart statement you have to take that seriously. Sound fair?

Lets just put it this way. I take this "general throws hissy fit" article as seriously as you take the "f-35 flies at night" story. make sense? Not only that but a lot of those stories you posted have plenty of positives you glossed over and many other reporters had the same take that I did --in fact one even used the term "new sheriff in town" So lets get something straight: Did the General say "mean things" did he "talk tough"? Yes. The difference is, I don't see that as dangerous to the program. You seem to think it means its all on the verge of cancellation now. I take it as "The general wants to light some fires" and you take it as "The general wants to burn the place down!"

See how our perspectives are different on the same story? There is also this thing called "commanders intent" and thanks to my alleged participation in the manly corpse I can read it better than you it would seem. I wasn't there though... was he winking at you or blowing kisses as he said this stuff? because that may change my take on it.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, now? I know you have your own blog with your own cultists, but other opinions are in fact ok. You not having the self discipline to not respond me to ever again as you claimed you would weeks ago (I had my fingers crossed) does not mean I am a troll. I think the main thing that bothers you is you had people at this forum eating out of the palm of your hand, and now there are people like me claiming that you are incorrect, and with inside information to boot and lets just say I don't think you have handled it very well.

"Manly Corpse" Bill? "Claims to be a Marine"? and I am trolling? Why do you even care if I am a member of a service you feel should be disbanded anyway? Why does that threaten you so? For a branch you hold in contempt you sure are in a hurry to discredit me.

Ive said it before and I will say it again. The onus is on the detractors to prove the F-35 wrong because as of right now its the future. And thats fine. The odd thing to me though is the confusion over what is a serious problem--what really is an issue and could degrade the program, and what is a mole hill being made into a mountain. It makes the anti JSF crew look desperate when they grab onto whatever crumb of information they can and run with it like they found the card that will bring the whole house down.

Its funny too because I have heard a few problems and I have thought "Sweetman will have fun with that when he hears about it" and then you don't catch it. Instead its some other "problem" you "caught" and it just makes me smile and shake my head. :

The JSF isn't getting cancelled. Its "over the hump" It has a long way to go, but the hardest parts are behind it. Plus more countries are signing on. when I discovered this forum I was surprised to see a lot of the same arguments that were popping up in 2009, and 2010. Lots of stuff I thought had been long debunked is still coming up here.

 

[AeroFranz]

"The onus is on the detractors to prove the F-35 wrong because as of right now its the future. And thats fine."

Errr...excuse me? That's not fine. I don't see the logic in that. You mean in the history of military procurement we've never fully committed to doing things that turned out to be stupid?


On one thing I will agree with you - In the end we will get F-35s. Period. I have no illusions that we have the time, political will, and resources to start over and 'do it right', or buy off-the-shelf alternatives (they might even be foreign, the horror!).I am not offering a solution either, because a) I didn't fu- I mean, mess it up in the first place. That'd be the government and Lockheed b) we ran out of maneuvering room once we put all our eggs in the JSF basket and set unrealistic requirements a decade ago.

That being said, since we're stuck with it, might as well salvage the salvageable. Has Lockheed's conduct of the program been irreproachable? No.
So if putting their feet to the fire, like Bogdan is doing, will help the cause, then so much the better. At the cost of being repetitive: all I want is what was promised. Nothing more, nothing less. TT, If you can guarantee to me that F-35 will be an aircraft that meets all its original specifications including being affordable enough to be procured in numbers, i will be happy to stop wasting electrons on a screen.

Right now, I can't help but feel that If I were Chinese, i'd be laughing my derriere off watching the JSF program trainwreck and the US pricing itself out of the fighter business.

 

[Triton]

Very well put, Aerofranz. And anyone who points out that we aren't getting what we were promised is attacked as an F-35 Detractor who delights in the program's failures or desires the program's cancellation. I want the JPO and Lockheed Martin to deliver on their promises. This aircraft will constitute a large portion of the air forces of the United States for the next couple of decades.

It's a really good indication that this program is out of control when opinion leaders are starting to advocate a re-opening of the F-22 Raptor production line as an affordable alternative to the JSF.

As a tax payer and citizen of the United States, we were sold expectations concerning the JSF program and I am mad as hell. I am beginning to feel that the case for the JSF was built on lies and damn lies and placing all our eggs in the JSF/Lockheed Martin basket makes the program impossible to cancel and we are left with no viable alternatives. We're on the hook to spend this program to success and eat the delays.

So Maj. Gen. Bogdan is all bluster? Really?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Very well put, Aerofranz. And anyone who points out that we aren't getting what we were promised is attacked as an F-35 Detractor who delights in the program's failures or desires the program's cancellation.

When people don't understand the full context and the relationship of governments, civilians, military, taxpayers, laws, contracts and the full intricacies of procurement to take what are often juvenile ill informed swings at something they barely comprehend. It can get hard explaining that stuff, and I don't usually have the patience to get into it. Don't judge a 10,000 piece puzzle by the three pieces you have in your hand that aren't to your liking. There are people involved in procurement right now in the Pentagon who barely understand it.

The next part of that is: Is this your first rodeo/BBQ?

Ever seen a military program go over time and over budget? I have seen once or twice and some quite recently. The problem is that there is a lot of noise and not a lot of context and comparison to other programs and the scope of what the JSF is trying to do. Delays are serious some more than others. There seems to be almost no perspective as to what constitutes a small problem or a massive one. JSF detractors just swing away, and they swing with amnesia of the history of other programs problems, often the very aircraft they advocate to take over for the JSF!

Lastly, there are two sides to every story. I have no problem with JSF detractors providing they havnt completely closed their minds off. "Dont confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" If you are like Bill though your professional reputation rides on the F-35 failing, and he refuses to concede any positive point.

I am more than happy to concede that the JSF is behind schedule and not where we want it to be right now, Some of that is on the aircaft itself, a lot of it is the system of procurement which has been an issue for decades. I think people have a hard time discerning between the aircraft, and the apparatus that berths it. So if an aircraft is overtime, overbudget, or even with changed parameters (thats every freaking airplane including Bill's model C-17) then it must be a dog. Politics shouldn't reflect on performance. In other words it won't kill Bill Sweetman to say something "I bet that pilot loves the airplane, I believe he is sincere, but I don't think thats the issue, Cost is what bothers not pilot opinion" Instead its "No it all sucks and that pilot is lying"Thats when it gets frustrating. There is a difference between criticism and venom, and bill has put himself into a hole where rather than pick his battles he attack sEVERYTHING.

It's a really good indication that this program is out of control when opinion leaders are starting to advocate a re-opening of the F-22 Raptor production line as an affordable alternative to the JSF.

Its an election year, dude. opinion leaders will say whatever gets them into office. and 225 million dollars per plane at best estimation if the F-22 production is restarted after two years. It will have been three years, and the factory that built them builds F-35s now.

As a tax payer and citizen of the United States, we were sold expectations concerning the JSF program and I am mad as hell. I am beginning to feel that the case for the JSF was built on lies and damn lies and placing all our eggs in the JSF/Lockheed Martin basket makes the program impossible to cancel and we are left with no viable alternatives.

So buy the Lockheed Martin Raptor at a 90 million per aircraft mark up? and what do the navy and USMC do again? and our allies that we wont sell the F-22 to? What do they do again?

So Maj. Gen. Bogdan is all bluster? Really?

Read the articles LO posted. So many people have taken more destructively motivated punches at this program that the light jabs no longer phase me. A lot of the stuff he says is laden with positives too. I wish the General the best of luck, his success means the JSFs success.

 

[Triton]

So what you are saying, TaiidanTomcat, is more fool us for believing the JPO and Lockheed Martin in the first place when we embarked on this JSF adventure. If the reality of costs and program schedules is so far off from the expectations that were set when we made this decision, then you start to believe that the JPO and Lockheed Martin are either incompetent or didn't believe the numbers and schedules when they presented them and pulled a con job on the American people and the stakeholders in the JSF program and participating countries. In any case, we are on the hook and have already sunk hundreds of millions into this project and will sink millions more before it's all over.

 

[RyanC]

The JSF isn't getting cancelled. Its "over the hump" It has a long way to go, but the hardest parts are behind it.

400-500 will be built for the USAF, not the fever dreams of 2,400~ bandied about.

In that, F-35 has failed already at it's main objective -- to be a cheap multirole stealthy aircraft.

Remember, a big argument for terminating F-22 production was that we'd get four F-35s for each F-22. Erm, well, now it's 1.2 or 1.3 F-35s for each F-22...

 

[RyanC]

No kidding. You need to head on back to Ares to tell the world how we would be better off with old 4th gen aircraft because that would be so much better. :

What we need is a serious discussion of the value-added capability that stealth adds to a combat aircraft, and how much stealth we are willing to pay for in increased programmatic cost up front and then in operations and maintenance over the years to maintain said level of stealth.

At what level does Stealth become a self-licking ice cream cone?

Do we need 0.001 m2 or less generalized RCS to maintain the viability of combat aircraft in an era when we can spam precision munitions with extremely long ranges and extremely accurate terminal guidance?

Yes, the Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-21 have had measures taken to reduce their RCS cross sections through shaping, but just how truly far have the Chinese gone in an attempt to reduce RCS? Are they aiming for eliminating cheap kills, or are they aiming at a loftier goal?

We won't know unless the Chinese media starts leaking more technical details other than just random pretty telephoto lens shots.

 

[RyanC]

Looking at Low Observable's links; I find a common refrain running through every one of them:

Business Insider:
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. That meant any additional cost overruns would eat into the number of planes to be ordered, schedule delays or reduced capabilities, he said.
"The department is done with major restructures that involve transferring billions of dollars into the F-35 program from somewhere else in the defense budget. There's no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach," Donley said.
Foreign Policy:
F-35's software is still not yet matured or nailed down, and there are continuing problems with the helmet -- to the point where they're looking at a second alternative design.

DoDBuzz:
The F-35 has faced a litany of missed deadlines and spiraling costs over its eleven years in development. Bogdan called it a “great gift” when the Defense Department was allowed to restructure the program adding 30 more months of development and receiving extra funding.

F-35 program officials must operate knowing a frustrated Congress will not be willing to hand out anymore gifts to Lockheed and acquisitions leaders.

“We will not go back and ask for any more, simple as that,” Bogdan said. “This is fundamentally a fixed-price development program.”

Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Bogdan said he has no intention of asking Congress for any more money for the F-35 beyond what's already in the pipeline.

"There is no more money and no more time in the development of this program," he said. "We will not go back and ask for any more."

Bogdan also served notice that Lockheed shouldn't assume it will provide the bulk of long-term F-35 support.

AOL Defense:
Pretty much the same bullet points as before.

DefenseNews (Gannett):
Pretty much the same bullet points as before.

So...what I'm taking away from this is that F-35 is still not over the 'hump' as far as programmatic complexities and cost-overruns are concerned, with so much of the F-35 still in flux, such as the Block III code, ALIS, the helmet, etc.

Since Bogdan has said that the program is now operating on a fixed-price development basis...that means that any more cost overruns will come out of the money allotted for the production of 2,400~ F-35 for the USA; and since you can't dramatically reduce production costs...that means a lot less than 2,400 will be built.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So what you are saying, TaiidanTomcat, is more fool us for believing the JPO and Lockheed Martin in the first place when we embarked on this JSF adventure. If the reality of costs and program schedules is so far off from the expectations that were set when we made this decision, then you start to believe that the JPO and Lockheed Martin are either incompetent or didn't believe the numbers and schedules when they presented them and pulled a con job on the American people and the stakeholders in the JSF program and participating countries. In any case, we are on the hook and have already sunk hundreds of millions into this project and will sink millions more before it's all over.

What am I am saying is that a fool is someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results. Until the system drastically changes, you will continue to get the same results. Boeing, understands this, lockheed understands this, anyone who "plays the game" knows this. I don't know how you "pull a con job" when your very survival depends on following a broken system. If sure if you got a Boeing Employee who was candid with you he would say that Boeing would be neck deep in the same issues themselves. Here is another big problem:

See how the system has no incentive to save your precious tax dollars?

One of my teammates is an engineer and he has this joke that gets me everytime. He works with Lasers "Lasers are the weapons of the future. They always have been"

If you are looking for a "Con job" though, check out missile defense. 200 billion spent, 20 someodd missiles fielded, latest study says they don't work either. Its in "nuclear weapons news" if you want to read it.


An optimist believes all this just goes away if you cancel the F-35 program. A pessimist believes you just get three new separate projects that are all over cost and over time because they are still from the same system but also going in different directions with no commonality. So my take is that the alternatives are much much more expensive, and less efficient to boot.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Looking at Low Observable's links; I find a common refrain running through every one of them:

Business Insider:
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. That meant any additional cost overruns would eat into the number of planes to be ordered, schedule delays or reduced capabilities, he said.
"The department is done with major restructures that involve transferring billions of dollars into the F-35 program from somewhere else in the defense budget. There's no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach," Donley said.
Foreign Policy:
F-35's software is still not yet matured or nailed down, and there are continuing problems with the helmet -- to the point where they're looking at a second alternative design.

DoDBuzz:
The F-35 has faced a litany of missed deadlines and spiraling costs over its eleven years in development. Bogdan called it a “great gift” when the Defense Department was allowed to restructure the program adding 30 more months of development and receiving extra funding.

F-35 program officials must operate knowing a frustrated Congress will not be willing to hand out anymore gifts to Lockheed and acquisitions leaders.

“We will not go back and ask for any more, simple as that,” Bogdan said. “This is fundamentally a fixed-price development program.”

Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Bogdan said he has no intention of asking Congress for any more money for the F-35 beyond what's already in the pipeline.

"There is no more money and no more time in the development of this program," he said. "We will not go back and ask for any more."

Bogdan also served notice that Lockheed shouldn't assume it will provide the bulk of long-term F-35 support.

AOL Defense:
Pretty much the same bullet points as before.

DefenseNews (Gannett):
Pretty much the same bullet points as before.

So...what I'm taking away from this is that F-35 is still not over the 'hump' as far as programmatic complexities and cost-overruns are concerned, with so much of the F-35 still in flux, such as the Block III code, ALIS, the helmet, etc.

Since Bogdan has said that the program is now operating on a fixed-price development basis...that means that any more cost overruns will come out of the money allotted for the production of 2,400~ F-35 for the USA; and since you can't dramatically reduce production costs...that means a lot less than 2,400 will be built.

I felt that was Bogdan setting out the areas he plans to address. The helmet seems to be the most fixable and they have a single aircraft working on nothing but that for example.

If you take Bogan at his word, they are over the hump because its impossible to get more money or have more delays, so the delays and money problems are behind it ;D

The Air Force will Front load things don't you worry.

 

[AeroFranz]

I agree F-35 and its shortcomings are largely a result of the messed up acquisition process. The question is: how do we get it fixed?
People, or corporations, don't change attitude unless they have something to lose (or something to gain).


I have a hard time formulating an opinion on the acquisition side of the house. Admittedly, i don't know enough about it. I do believe that some of the concerns voiced on SPF are valid, namely the disbandment of a good-sized acquisition office with technically competent people, who not only can set realistic goals for the prime, but can keep an eye during conceptual/preliminary design activities to steer the program in the desired direction.


On the contractor side, I can only think of two things to motivate the people involved: the carrot or the stick. So far there's been enough of the former ($$$), so maybe it's not overdue for Bogdan to bring some tough love.

 

[RyanC]

If you are looking for a "Con job" though, check out missile defense. 200 billion spent, 20 someodd missiles fielded, latest study says they don't work either. Its in "nuclear weapons news" if you want to read it.

Oh they work. Just not in the way CDI, et al expect them to. CDI et al are operating in the ABM Treaty era, which banned a lot of useful technologies or tactics.

For example, did you know that under the ABM Treaty, AN/TPY-2 would be banned?

Article III of the ABM treaty says that all the components of your allowed ABM site have to be within a 150 kilometer radius. Since we have TPY-2 in Japan....that's quite a long ways away from Fort Greely!

Likewise, space based sensors are banned, along with AEGIS based BMD:

Article V bans the test, development and deployment of ABM systems or components which are sea based, air based, space based, or mobile land based.

That kills AEGIS (Sea Based), and TPY-2 (Mobile Land Based).

Likewise, Agreed Statement E of the ABM treaty makes technologies such as MKV (MIRVed interceptors) off limits.

"The Parties understand that Article V of the Treaty includes obligations not to develop, test or deploy ABM interceptor missiles for the delivery by each ABM interceptor missile of more than one independently guided warhead."

You kind of need multiple warheads per missile, if you're limited to just 100 ABM interceptors to mount a credible defense....

If you ever wanted to see how to make a specific technology IMPOSSIBLE, you can't go any more wrong than studying the ABM treaty.

BTW, back in 1972; they were planning a product improved SPARTAN which would use sensor fusion from such things as space based infrared sensors to allow SPARTAN to intercept the target 2,000 miles from the Mickelson site, instead of 400.

That's I think, more than enough range to hit the warhead buses themselves well before decoys or warheads have been released...

You can see from the above that George W. Bush had very, very, good reasons to announce the USA's withdrawal from the ABM treaty -- because with it in effect, no truly credible ABM system or network can be built.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What we need is a serious discussion of the value-added capability that stealth adds to a combat aircraft, and how much stealth we are willing to pay for in increased programmatic cost up front and then in operations and maintenance over the years to maintain said level of stealth.

At what level does Stealth become a self-licking ice cream cone?

Do we need 0.001 m2 or less generalized RCS to maintain the viability of combat aircraft in an era when we can spam precision munitions with extremely long ranges and extremely accurate terminal guidance?

There is more to a fifth generation aircraft than just stealth. In fact of all the problems the F-35 has had skin has not been one of them. Engines and sensors are where the money goes today, as has been previously stated in this thread.

 

[Triton]

A broken acquisition system that forces the Department of Defense and military contractors to deliberately misrepresent costs and the dates of program milestones? So what you are saying is that any information coming out of the JPO and Lockheed Martin should be treated with suspicion and skepticism.