The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Arjen]

At no point ever did the USMC say that they would be flying in a full throttle hover 80 percent. That was from CAPE.

How is it a conspiracy to say that the Marine Corps will only be using the lift fan to land and take off as they always planned? Unbelievably pathetic, of the author. who apparently doesn't even understand how the Marines use the Harrier.

And the CAPE estimaters who thought the USMC would spend 80 percent of their time hovering around, are clearly in over their heads in terms of understanding the basics.

Defense-aerospace's Mr De Briganti is saying that 80% of the US Marines' F-35B operations are assumed by CAPE to be STOVL operations.

At no time was CAPE assuming that 80% of F-35B's flying time will be spent hovering/doing STO.

Furthermore, if STOVL operations are limited to 10% of flight activities, it is hard to see how Marine pilots will ever gain enough experience to fly STOVL missions from small, unprepared landing zones on the beachhead – the main, if not only, reason the Marine Corps says the F-35B is indispensable.

It is now claimed by Schmidle et al that only 10% of total USMC F-35B operations will be STOVL operations.

Mr De Briganti also notes that the business case for the 1 billion euro Italian FACO facility will be considerably weakened if the USMC projections prove to be correct:

It probably also is unwelcome news for Italy, which so far has spent a billion euros to set up a Final Assembly and Check-Out facility, which also is to maintain its own, Dutch and possibly other European F-35s. If the Marines can do 90% of the job at lower cost, then so can European air forces. This means Italy’s investment is essentially useless, and the business plan for the facility, and for Alenia’s future, is no longer valid. But the 1 billion has been spent.

In a broader perspective:

Schmidle also told Reuters that the Marines would “trim maintenance costs by doing up to 90 percent of the work in house, rather than farming it out to contractors.” He added that “similar efforts had resulted in big savings on the V-22, the Marines' tilt-rotor aircraft.”

Again, this statement flies in the face of previous claims that private contractors cost less than military personnel, and that the Pentagon (and other militaries, especially in Europe, would save huge amounts by outsourcing work to the private sector.

It also implies that the Pentagon has been wasting billions of dollars on contractor services when, if Schmidle is to be believed, military personnel can do the same job at lower cost.

 

[SOC]

It is now claimed by Schmidle et al that only 10% of total USMC F-35B operations will be STOVL operations.

That'd seem to imply that they won't be spending a great deal of time with F-35Bs deployed at sea. One then has to wonder if that 10% is really worth the added cost and complexity to the program.

 

[sferrin]

It is now claimed by Schmidle et al that only 10% of total USMC F-35B operations will be STOVL operations.

That'd seem to imply that they won't be spending a great deal of time with F-35Bs deployed at sea. One then has to wonder if that 10% is really worth the added cost and complexity to the program.

Kinda like "well you only use an airbag 0.00001% of the time. One then has to wonder if it's worth it." Thing is, when you need it, it's the only thing that will work. Unless you know of another STOVL Harrier replacement? Furthermore, how many USN aircraft spend 100% of their time at sea? None? So why couldn't we scrap aircraft carriers altogether and make due with land bases? There are lots of things that fall into the same category. How often do we use nukes? How many times have Ohios launched SSBNs in anger? When the last time an SSN sunk a ship? Should we get rid of torpedos and their associated tubes, etc.? How many aircraft have the Aegis system shot down in anger? That system is pretty expensive you know. In fact when it comes right down to it the only weapons the USN has used in anger in the last 20 years are guns and Tomahawks. We should get rid of everything else probably. Right?

 

[SOC]

Kinda like "well you only use an airbag 0.00001% of the time. One then has to wonder if it's worth it." Thing is, when you need it, it's the only thing that will work. Unless you know of another STOVL Harrier replacement? Furthermore, how many USN aircraft spend 100% of their time at sea? None? So why couldn't we scrap aircraft carriers altogether and make due with land bases? There are lots of things that fall into the same category. How often do we use nukes? How many times have Ohios launched SSBNs in anger? When the last time an SSN sunk a ship? Should we get rid of torpedos and their associated tubes, etc.? How many aircraft have the Aegis system shot down in anger? That system is pretty expensive you know. In fact when it comes right down to it the only weapons the USN has used in anger in the last 20 years are guns and Tomahawks. We should get rid of everything else probably. Right?

Most of those deal with some form of deterrence. I.E. nobody will attack a CBG because AEGIS is a pain in the ass, or nobody will attack the US because the SSBNs will remove them as a problem. Furthermore there are a lot of times we do things that we don't technically need to. Tanking before going into Iraqi airspace, for one. A lot of the fighters or bombers had range to hit targets and get back without it, but we like the idea of having enough gas to use up if required. It allows you to do militarily useful things like loiter for CAP orbits, hit the burners and scream off to a TST, etc. That being said, I'm still trying to find the military environment where the F-35B would be unequivocally required to operate in STOVL mode or we're screwed. Then you end up going from "logical thing we'd exploit in a certain environment" to "we did it because we can and because we used to so there." The latter would seem to be a less than intelligent way of allocating already limited resources. Although it's ultimately the government doing the allocating, so it probably shouldn't be a surprise.

Let's assume that X-band LO is always going to work, and that the politicians are making logical assumptions about so-called future threats : The USAF needs to get onboard, requiring LO platforms to replace legacy aircraft as fun new things like the SA-11 and SA-20 start to appear in new places. The USN needs to get onboard, because they lack anything close to LO and they're often the first ones close to trouble spots. Why then the USMC? They could use the F-35C off of USN decks the same way they do with F/A-18s. Can't assume that they'll be first in with an amphib deck, because if they're only doing 10% of STOVL operations they won't have embarked F-35Bs most of the time. If it's bad enough to need the crap bombed out of it, there is pretty much no chance that you're going to be 1) outside of USN air cover, or 2) outside of land-based air cover. Which again makes it seem like it's being done because it can, not because there's actually a sensible need to retain the capability.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

At no point ever did the USMC say that they would be flying in a full throttle hover 80 percent. That was from CAPE.

How is it a conspiracy to say that the Marine Corps will only be using the lift fan to land and take off as they always planned? Unbelievably pathetic, of the author. who apparently doesn't even understand how the Marines use the Harrier.

And the CAPE estimaters who thought the USMC would spend 80 percent of their time hovering around, are clearly in over their heads in terms of understanding the basics.

Defense-aerospace's Mr De Briganti is saying that 80% of the US Marines' F-35B operations are assumed by CAPE to be STOVL operations.

At no time was CAPE assuming that 80% of F-35B's flying time will be spent hovering/doing STO.

Furthermore, if STOVL operations are limited to 10% of flight activities, it is hard to see how Marine pilots will ever gain enough experience to fly STOVL missions from small, unprepared landing zones on the beachhead – the main, if not only, reason the Marine Corps says the F-35B is indispensable.

It is now claimed by Schmidle et al that only 10% of total USMC F-35B operations will be STOVL operations.

Im still waiting to see the part where the Marines quoted 80 percent of anything. I don't think its right to attribute quotes to people that never said them, and then cry "scandal."

 

[sferrin]

Kinda like "well you only use an airbag 0.00001% of the time. One then has to wonder if it's worth it." Thing is, when you need it, it's the only thing that will work. Unless you know of another STOVL Harrier replacement? Furthermore, how many USN aircraft spend 100% of their time at sea? None? So why couldn't we scrap aircraft carriers altogether and make due with land bases? There are lots of things that fall into the same category. How often do we use nukes? How many times have Ohios launched SSBNs in anger? When the last time an SSN sunk a ship? Should we get rid of torpedos and their associated tubes, etc.? How many aircraft have the Aegis system shot down in anger? That system is pretty expensive you know. In fact when it comes right down to it the only weapons the USN has used in anger in the last 20 years are guns and Tomahawks. We should get rid of everything else probably. Right?

Most of those deal with some form of deterrence. I.E. nobody will attack a CBG because AEGIS is a pain in the ass, or nobody will attack the US because the SSBNs will remove them as a problem. Furthermore there are a lot of times we do things that we don't technically need to. Tanking before going into Iraqi airspace, for one. A lot of the fighters or bombers had range to hit targets and get back without it, but we like the idea of having enough gas to use up if required. It allows you to do militarily useful things like loiter for CAP orbits, hit the burners and scream off to a TST, etc. That being said, I'm still trying to find the military environment where the F-35B would be unequivocally required to operate in STOVL mode or we're screwed. Then you end up going from "logical thing we'd exploit in a certain environment" to "we did it because we can and because we used to so there." The latter would seem to be a less than intelligent way of allocating already limited resources. Although it's ultimately the government doing the allocating, so it probably shouldn't be a surprise.

Let's assume that X-band LO is always going to work, and that the politicians are making logical assumptions about so-called future threats : The USAF needs to get onboard, requiring LO platforms to replace legacy aircraft as fun new things like the SA-11 and SA-20 start to appear in new places. The USN needs to get onboard, because they lack anything close to LO and they're often the first ones close to trouble spots. Why then the USMC? They could use the F-35C off of USN decks the same way they do with F/A-18s. Can't assume that they'll be first in with an amphib deck, because if they're only doing 10% of STOVL operations they won't have embarked F-35Bs most of the time. If it's bad enough to need the crap bombed out of it, there is pretty much no chance that you're going to be 1) outside of USN air cover, or 2) outside of land-based air cover. Which again makes it seem like it's being done because it can, not because there's actually a sensible need to retain the capability.

The USMC seems to disagree. They still have their Harriers after all when, if they didn't need them, they could have easily just bought more Hornets. Of course then you'd be giving up 10 or so flight decks capable of operating fighters which doesn't seem like a particularly smart move.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Why then the USMC? They could use the F-35C off of USN decks the same way they do with F/A-18s.

They could but here is the problem. When Marine F-18A/C are in CVWs they fall under the command of the US Navy. The Marines are not their own tribe on a CVN, capable of flying the missions they feel are important. For all intents and purposes when a Marine F-18 squadron embarks on a carrier, they are just another navy squadron. The Marines consider them "donated" and don't think about them. To have them released from that duty means going through the navy and getting permission. two seat F-18s are kept "land based" to keep from falling into that trap and the navy has zero interest in harriers, so they are safe from meddling, and the MEU commander can use them how he pleases. Its "organic firepower"

Can't assume that they'll be first in with an amphib deck, because if they're only doing 10% of STOVL operations they won't have embarked F-35Bs most of the time.

not correct, and here is why: You seem to underestimate just how often Harriers have to use Vertical landings or rolling vertical landings: that is every time. also because harriers are unforgiving and you need "eight arms to land them" you have to spend more time on practice. The F-35B being vastly more easy and safer to land means you are spending a lot less time practicing, so the conventional landings will be the order of the day, unless its practice time. Its nice to have a STOVL aircraft that can just do conventional landings as well. Its not going to affect shipboard deployments, they will remain the same. Any implication that the Marines are going to limit shipboard operations in the future is grounded in ignorance. Even a pessimist knows the great USMC PR machine is not going to forego shipboard operations. in fact the Marines won't be shutting up about the F-35B operating from gators for the next 15 years, they will show it off at every opportunity.

Next, lets remember that the F-35B is replaceing the F-18A/C/D and EA-6B -- not just the harrier. Last I checked the F-18s and prowlers didn't land vertically. The USMC has:

AV-8B 7 squadrons (1 training)
EA-6B 4 squadrons
F-18A/C/D 13 squadrons (1 training)

So even now just how much of the USMC airwing is landing on a ship vertically? can I then take whatever that percentage is and then try and extrapolate that the Gator navy/MEU isn't getting fixed wing support?

Now what is going to happen in the future is the Marine corps will have 240 F-35Bs, a certain number of them will be doing their "float rotation" but the rest of the Bees will be operating on the same land bases as the Hornets and Prowlers did previously, in conventional landing and take-off means while not doing their turn on the float. Whats nice is you can potentially "surge" them, you can send additional F-35Bs to the gators when needed, you could even send the Bees on some kind of Atlantic conveyor if push came to shove. Its about versatility. When they need it, they have it.

If it's bad enough to need the crap bombed out of it, there is pretty much no chance that you're going to be 1) outside of USN air cover, or 2) outside of land-based air cover. Which again makes it seem like it's being done because it can, not because there's actually a sensible need to retain the capability.

keeping in mind there are more customer for the B than than the C, there seem to be more than a few people who think its worth having. Apparently the UK can envision a recent time when they needed jump jets and were outside of air cover from the air force...

Finally its a matter of firepower. If there is a CVN on station, great! If not the F-35B will due til it gets there, and of course the Bee can add additional tails to the fight if a CVN is already engaged. Typically thats the way America and a lot of other countries fight wars, they don't just send on asset and consider it "covered" they send multiple assets. CVNs and the USAF has not meant the USMC has been sitting around bored and idle by any stretch, they are fighting just as much and just as often, from gators, land and CVNs.

We have also yet to fight a conflict the last 50 years that has been out of USAF reach and seen CVNs only... and yet we retain CVNs? seems kind of redundant to me, but Its almost like CVNs are a convenient way to augment forces with additional firepower. and the navy loves to point out that carriers are mobile.

When was the last time the USAF fought a war without Marine and Navy augmentation? When was the last time the Navy fought a war without Marine and Air Force augmentation? So at what point did we finally decide that the USAF can do it alone or that the Navy can do it alone? Thats whats always funny about these arguments. Why do we have a Marine Corps Air Wing? because every damn argument the US Navy uses to justify its air wing and carriers also works for the USMC. And thats if you are the US, These CVNs are kind of rare jewels and not many countries have them. The F-35B creates aircraft carriers from gators, and the F-35B being a capable aircraft brings as much to the fight as an F-35A or C, and more than hornet of any mark. Gators will be even more useful as we will have a vastly improved capability operating from them.

The UK and Italy (and someday Japan) rely on VSTOL/STOVL because they can't afford CVNs. So in the US STOVL may seem a weird thing, but in the UK and Italy its the only game in town. Don't just look at it from a narrowed US only focus. If we are talking about VSTOL/STOVL as a concept, its by no means just an American story, its an internationally used system with decades of history behind it. You have to take the entire picture into account.

nobody will attack the US because the SSBNs will remove them as a problem.

Ahh, true. but can we now assume that ICBMs and Strategic bombers are redundant then, as the Navy has this covered? Why do we need so much "deterrence" anyway? What is the military's wacky obsession with redundancy? Think of the F-35 as an aircraft version of a "nuclear triad." CVN/STOVL/CTOL

 

[GTX]

Why then the USMC? They could use the F-35C off of USN decks the same way they do with F/A-18s.

What about the Royal Navy? What about the Italian Navy? What about the Spanish Navy (eventually)? This notion that the F-35B is only a USMC plaything is incorrect. Moreover, what about the reporting that Singapore is apparently going to place an order for F-35Bs soon...I wonder why?

 

[sferrin]

Why then the USMC? They could use the F-35C off of USN decks the same way they do with F/A-18s.

What about the Royal Navy? What about the Italian Navy? What about the Spanish Navy (eventually)? This notion that the F-35B is only a USMC plaything is incorrect. Moreover, what about the reporting that Singapore is apparently going to place an order for F-35Bs soon...I wonder why?

I'll bet we'll see both Japan and South Korea with B's before it's over as well.

 

[GTX]

Agreed.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Mr De Briganti also notes that the business case for the 1 billion euro Italian FACO facility will be considerably weakened if the USMC projections prove to be correct:

It probably also is unwelcome news for Italy, which so far has spent a billion euros to set up a Final Assembly and Check-Out facility, which also is to maintain its own, Dutch and possibly other European F-35s. If the Marines can do 90% of the job at lower cost, then so can European air forces. This means Italy’s investment is essentially useless, and the business plan for the facility, and for Alenia’s future, is no longer valid. But the 1 billion has been spent.

Just so I can make sure I have firmly jumped down the rabbit hole.... We are now upset that revised numbers that save billions of dollars on a program that is notoriously expensive and is under fire at all times for cost , but are upset for manufacturers who I am reminded at all times on this forum are shady, lying, corrupt and overcharging for their services as they bend their costumers over, will not make the kind of profits they hoped?

What can I say? I'm sorry the F-35 didn't cost more so the Italian manufacturer could make more money on it?

He doesn't seem to understand how Italy is contributing to the F-35, either.

 

[SOC]

They could but here is the problem. When Marine F-18A/C are in CVWs they fall under the command of the US Navy. The Marines are not their own tribe on a CVN, capable of flying the missions they feel are important. For all intents and purposes when a Marine F-18 squadron embarks on a carrier, they are just another navy squadron. The Marines consider them "donated" and don't think about them. To have them released from that duty means going through the navy and getting permission. two seat F-18s are kept "land based" to keep from falling into that trap and the navy has zero interest in harriers, so they are safe from meddling, and the MEU commander can use them how he pleases. Its "organic firepower"

OK, THAT is something I was never aware of. The only Navy guys I interacted with directly for any length of time were not pilots so shop talk tended to go a different route.

not correct, and here is why: You seem to underestimate just how often
Harriers have to use Vertical landings or rolling vertical landings: that is every time. also because harriers are unforgiving and you need "eight arms
to land them" you have to spend more time on practice. The F-35B being vastly more easy and safer to land means you are spending a lot less time practicing,
so the conventional landings will be the order of the day, unless its practice time. Its nice to have a STOVL aircraft that can just do conventional landings
as well. Its not going to affect shipboard deployments, they will remain the same. Any implication that the Marines are going to limit shipboard operations
in the future is grounded in ignorance. Even a pessimist knows the great USMC PR machine is not going to forego shipboard operations. in fact the Marines won't
be shutting up about the F-35B operating from gators for the next 15 years, they will show it off at every opportunity.

The only way to settle this one is to find out if that 10% figure is in any way credible. Think about it: if they only do STOVL ops 10% of the time, then subtracting (for the sake of argument, I'm making this up) 5% for training leaves you with 5% for normal shipboard ops. That would seem to be implying that there won't be a lot of them deployed at sea, because at sea they have 1 option: STOVL.

So even now just how much of the USMC airwing is landing on a ship vertically? can I then take whatever that percentage is and then try and extrapolate that the Gator navy/MEU isn't getting fixed wing support?

It doesn't matter how much of their air arm is landing vertically, it's the assertion that only 10% of F-35B ops will entail STOVL, meaning that less than 10% of their operational time (minus training, although using the word operations might mean training is discounted?) is planned to be at sea. THAT implies that there won't be a lot of them at sea at any given point, which is why I said you can't count on having a gator with the B model embarked anywhere near where someone goes retarded.

Now what is going to happen in the future is the Marine corps will have 240
F-35Bs, a certain number of them will be doing their "float rotation" but the rest of the Bees will be operating on the same land bases as the Hornets and
Prowlers did previously, in conventional landing and take-off means while not doing their turn on the float. Whats nice is you can potentially "surge" them,
you can send additional F-35Bs to the gators when needed, you could even send the Bees on some kind of Atlantic conveyor if push came to shove.
Its about versatility. When they need it, they have it

That part I agree with. But it still means you'd have to surge, which goes back to the point that they might not be where they're required right away. Not that it's necessarily wrong or some sort of lapse, just simple geography.

keeping in mind there are more customer for the B than than the C, there seem to
be more than a few people who think its worth having. Apparently the UK can envision a recent time when they needed jump jets and were outside of air cover
from the air force...

...and it could be argued that the UK needed jump jets precisely because they'd gotten rid of their flattops. In fact, maybe with their Bucs and Phantoms down there the RN would've been of a mind to kick the crap out of the delusionals to a much greater degree, forestalling the current idiocy. ANYWAY, those guys aren't entirely relevant the way I was thinking, because I didn't figure that the expense of making the B would've been paid had the USMC went with the C. The RN was already waffling about the B or C anyway, so they would've just gone with the C for their new decks. Everyone else totals a number too miniscule to justify the added development expense, in part because two ideal customers either 1) represent someone we're afraid to deal with rationally or 2) represent someone who refuses to realize that history is some stuff that already happened.

Finally its a matter of firepower. If there is a CVN on station, great! If not
the F-35B will due til it gets there, and of course the Bee can add additional tails to the fight if a CVN is already engaged. Typically thats the way America
and a lot of other countries fight wars, they don't just send on asset and consider it "covered" they send multiple assets. CVNs and the USAF has not meant
the USMC has been sitting around bored and idle by any stretch, they are fighting just as much and just as often, from gators, land and CVNs.

Whether or not it'll do is a whole different argument. Based on our current history of only bombing anyone a few generations behind in the air defense concept, yeah, it'll do just fine. Now if the DoD wasn't in fact thoroughly talking out of it's ass to get funding, we'd be in a different environment entirely, and then you're gonna wish you had about 100 more B-2s real damn fast if you don't want to play with the big boy toys.

We have also yet to fight a conflict the last 50 years that has been out of USAF
reach and seen CVNs only... and yet we retain CVNs? seems kind of redundant to me, but Its almost like CVNs are a convenient way to augment forces with
additional firepower. and the navy loves to point out that carriers are mobile.

Parking one offshore makes non-Iranians tend to not be stupid. Plus they do have a significant purpose when France would rather support terrorists blowing up discos.

And thats if you are the US, These CVNs are kind of rare jewels and not many
countries have them. The F-35B creates aircraft carriers from gators, and the F-35B being a capable aircraft brings as much to the fight as an F-35A or C, and
more than hornet of any mark. Gators will be even more useful as we will have a vastly improved capability operating from them.

When you think about it the USMC will now be able to theoretically use the Sea Control Ship concept pretty effectively.

Ahh, true. but can we now assume that ICBMs and Strategic bombers are redundant then, as the Navy has this covered? Why do we need so much "deterrence" anyway? What is the military's wacky obsession with redundancy? Think of the F-35 as an aircraft version of a "nuclear triad." CVN/STOVL/CTOL

ICBMs, yes, depending on a few factors, one of which would be getting more SSBNs. Problem is the ICBM is far cheaper to deploy. F-35 triad...LOL. I'm gonna have to use that, in an Aardvarkian context.

I'll bet we'll see both Japan and South Korea with B's before it's over as well.

And for them, and Taiwan, it'd actually make a lot of sense. But again, not quite relevant to my train of thought as they weren't getting them if the USMC didn't have the B requirement. And then there's the aforementioned allusion that one to those three is someone we're scared to give the A model and one is someone scared of the concept of a flattop. The ROK really should build one, it'd be hilarious.

What about the Royal Navy? What about the Italian Navy? What about the Spanish Navy (eventually)? This notion that the F-35B is only a USMC plaything is incorrect. Moreover, what about the reporting that Singapore is apparently going to place an order for F-35Bs soon...I wonder why?

The point is that if the USMC requirement for the B didn't exist, those guys weren't getting one.

 

[kcran567]

For the money, how will the F-35 compare to the Pakfa? Even though the Pakfa is earlier in development than the F-35, I wonder what a Navy pilot would rather be flying. I also ponder the cost benefit vs. a J-20 also. I would bet a Navy pilot would much rather be in a J-20 or Pakfa than an F-35. At least that would be my opinion if I was a Navy pilot. Single engine F-35, less performance, no supersonic cruise, etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The only way to settle this one is to find out if that 10% figure is in any way credible. Think about it: if they only do STOVL ops 10% of the time, then subtracting (for the sake of argument, I'm making this up) 5% for training leaves you with 5% for normal shipboard ops. That would seem to be implying that there won't be a lot of them deployed at sea, because at sea they have 1 option: STOVL.

The original article cast a slant on this issue clouded by ignorance of how the F-35B is different to the Harrier. What a surprise ignorance of the F-35 effecting opinion about the F-35.

The USMC fleet of F-35Bs (340 total) will only have six flights (one for each deployed expeditionary strike group) of six embarked on LHA/LHDs at any one time. Which is 10.5%. The rest of the F-35B fleet will be shore based and therefore not required to use STOVL to launch and recover.

Now the big difference compared to the Harrier is the F-35B has an automatic landing system. There is no need to do any significant in air training to be competent in STOVL operations. Unlike the Harrier which requires an awful lot of training and skill to land safely by vertical hover.

So only those LHD/LHA deployed F-35Bs (36 out of 340) will need to use STOVL to get into the air. And no doubt they will cut down the number of STOVL missions per deployment when they visit friendly shore bases as part of their cruise.

Of course in an actual war scenario a lot more of the F-35B fleet may be based on short deck ships and from short forward airfields. But the cost modelling of the F-35 and any other asset is based on a typical peacetime usage. Additional costs for war are factored in by budget supplementals so have no place here.

The big question here is not that the USMC will only fly 10% of its missions with the F-35B in STOVL but why CAPE thought they could get away with an awfully inflated 80% number. Mmm auditors inflating the cost models? Say it isn’t so.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

OK, THAT is something I was never aware of. The only Navy guys I interacted with directly for any length of time were not pilots so shop talk tended to go a different route.

Cool, I'm glad I could help.

The only way to settle this one is to find out if that 10% figure is in any way credible. Think about it: if they only do STOVL ops 10% of the time, then subtracting (for the sake of argument, I'm making this up) 5% for training leaves you with 5% for normal shipboard ops. That would seem to be implying that there won't be a lot of them deployed at sea, because at sea they have 1 option: STOVL.

It doesn't matter how much of their air arm is landing vertically, it's the assertion that only 10% of F-35B ops will entail STOVL, meaning that less than 10% of their operational time (minus training, although using the word operations might mean training is discounted?) is planned to be at sea. THAT implies that there won't be a lot of them at sea at any given point, which is why I said you can't count on having a gator with the B model embarked anywhere near where someone goes retarded.

Mr Gubler seems to have answered that (thank you, Abraham)

That part I agree with. But it still means you'd have to surge, which goes back to the point that they might not be where they're required right away. Not that it's necessarily wrong or some sort of lapse, just simple geography.

In time of war everything surges, and nothing is seemingly where it needs to be.

...and it could be argued that the UK needed jump jets precisely because they'd gotten rid of their flattops. In fact, maybe with their Bucs and Phantoms down there the RN would've been of a mind to kick the crap out of the delusionals to a much greater degree, forestalling the current idiocy.

Maybe, but they didn't. And cost. Cost is a factor at all times. Maybe if the UK was willing to spend more, but thats a topic for another place.

ANYWAY, those guys aren't entirely relevant the way I was thinking, because I didn't figure that the expense of making the B would've been paid had the USMC went with the C. The RN was already waffling about the B or C anyway, so they would've just gone with the C for their new decks. Everyone else totals a number too miniscule to justify the added development expense, in part because two ideal customers either 1) represent someone we're afraid to deal with rationally or 2) represent someone who refuses to realize that history is some stuff that already happened.

Hindsight is 20/20. We didn't think we would have the kind of cost, delays, and issues at the time. But that being said, the money has spent, the pain endured, if we were going to kill the B, 2006 was the time to do it, not 2 years from IOC. Also as I have been reminded of repeatedly, the F-35C has yet to land on a ship. The Marines are doing DT II as we speak. Maybe before we kill off the B we make sure the C can work on a ship?

Whether or not it'll do is a whole different argument. Based on our current history of only bombing anyone a few generations behind in the air defense concept, yeah, it'll do just fine. Now if the DoD wasn't in fact thoroughly talking out of it's ass to get funding, we'd be in a different environment entirely, and then you're gonna wish you had about 100 more B-2s real damn fast if you don't want to play with the big boy toys.

If we play with the big boys we need everything. Maybe even capable 21st century jump jets. I don't expect 80 more B-2s will be getting there any faster. And again hindsight being what it is, we probably should have kept the B-2s going. But we didn't. Having said that I think that the F-35B will be highly valuable in any conflict that isn't bombing mud huts. (it can, its just overkill, not that overkill stopped us from using B-2s)

Parking one offshore makes non-Iranians tend to not be stupid. Plus they do have a significant purpose when France would rather support terrorists blowing up discos.

Very true, and the same thing has been said of MEUs too. I'm glad you mention Libya, were USMC harriers were in action from amphibs only 2 years ago. in fact using the MEU and its organic air compliment, Harriers and V-22s rescued two F-15E pilots in under90 minutes. MEUs also have a battalion of Marines, artillery, tanks, and attack helicopters as well, which is something a CVN doesn't have. I mention this because not every MEU fixed wing mission may be against hordes of enemy fighters in all combat, it might be to protect an evacuation, support an ally, a raid, or any other mission that requires deep strike or escort into hostile zones, or even in defense of hostile attack from air, land, or sea force and to do any number of missions MEUs are expected perform.

When you think about it the USMC will now be able to theoretically use the Sea Control Ship concept pretty effectively.

I agree and I think its helpful. I really like the idea of having a more Powerful Sea Control Ship. The future seems to be looking like fewer CVNs, And I really don't want to have more "hot spots" than ships, or give any shady people the impression we are too busy elsewhere to stop any shenanigans. Does it mean that a ARG can beat Iran single-handedly? No, but I like the idea that it could make life hell for them until more support arrives, rather than asking "What can we do with harriers? No EW, or SEAD (and only very recently) BVR missiles"

For example, the Marine Corps has been looking into a lot of different ways to preempt or slow an invasion force, the Marines being an invasion force themselves know how to do this, its just that previously you couldn't go for the jugular like you will be able to with the F-35B since it can find and then more safely attack those weak points. There is nothing worse than getting hit as you move to your jumping off point. Spoiling attacks can be surprisingly effective and can delay or even postpone invasion plans

For the money, how will the F-35 compare to the Pakfa? Even though the Pakfa is earlier in development than the F-35, I wonder what a Navy pilot would rather be flying.

According to everyone on the internet the Navy pilot would rather being flying the latest super hornet variant, complete with draggy pods and CFTs.

I also ponder the cost benefit vs. a J-20 also. I would bet a Navy pilot would much rather be in a J-20 or Pakfa than an F-35. At least that would be my opinion if I was a Navy pilot. Single engine F-35, less performance, no supersonic cruise, etc.

I bet the navy pilot would like to know if it can land on a ship I would also ask how it compares to the Super Hornet and hornets the USN has now. If you were a navy pilot would you rather be flying an F-18C against the PAKFA/J-20? There isn't exactly a Navy F-22 out there that the dastardly JSF is keeping them from.

 

[Rickshaw]

The RN was already waffling about the B or C anyway, so they would've just gone with the C for their new decks.

Minor correction - it wasn't the RN which was waffling. It was the Government. The RN had decided it couldn't afford a COTOL carrier deck so had to go with the B. HM Government however when it saw the price of the Bs, decided that the cheaper C would do BUT didn't understand that the carrier design was now set in stone. It could not be changed without ships' costs blowing out even further, so they had to accept that the B was the only horse in the race.

 

[Arjen]

Just so I can make sure I have firmly jumped down the rabbit hole.... We are now upset that revised numbers that save billions of dollars on a program that is notoriously expensive and is under fire at all times for cost , but are upset for manufacturers who I am reminded at all times on this forum are shady, lying, corrupt and overcharging for their services as they bend their costumers over, will not make the kind of profits they hoped?

What can I say? I'm sorry the F-35 didn't cost more so the Italian manufacturer could make more money on it?

He doesn't seem to understand how Italy is contributing to the F-35, either.

I think you're missing De Briganti's point. Italy has invested a billion euros in a facility that, if the UMSC's claims are correct, will be less efficient than USMC military personnel at maintaining F-35s. Other F-35 users would, in that case, also be advised to bypass private contractors for maintenance. Little use remains for the Italian FACO facility in that case. What the USMC would implicitly would want us to believe, is that Italy has squandered a billion euros on their FACO facility. Investing that kind of money is usually preceded by some deliberation.

This is De Briganti's point: the USMC claim flies in the face of over a decade of protestations that employing private contractors will lower F-35 maintenance costs - farming out maintenance was, until now apparently, part of the F-35 business case.

The notion was that a when a maintenance contractor doesn't perform, it can be replaced by another that performs cheaper/better. This notion was primarily driven by cost considerations. Now the USMC says maintenance is best done in house - because that way, it will cost less. I would say that claim deserves thorough verification, after being told for years that farming out was the best option.

Competition between contractors will be removed as a factor in keeping maintenance costs down, lower maintenance costs will result anyway - right.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Italy and UK may operate their F-35Bs differently as they have fewer of them, but retain the Naval Commitment. To Italy may be getting the same amount of work on the B. As for the A, I'm not sure. LM disagrees with the USMC idea though:

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/19/marines-launch-drive-to-drop-f-35-costs/

We could have different practices depending on who is operating them. I think the difference the USMC is planning is cutting out maintenance above the squadron level (I- Level) But serious Overhauls aren't going to change, which mean Italy would see the exact same amount of traffic, unless the Europeans were planning on bringing them to italy for all above squadron level maint...

 

[GTX]

The Italian FACO is prime candidate for being the European Regional Maintenance Support Depot which while definitely keep it well occupied for many, many years.

 

[Arjen]

If prospective European F-35 operators still consider the Italian FACO facility as their best option for maintenance, that somewhat diminishes the strength of the USMC's claims.

 

[GTX]

No, that is not the case. The Regional Maintenance Support Depot/Hub is to be used for the sort of maintenance that is not able to be performed at the Squadron level. We are talking major deeper maintenance, overhauls, engine strip downs, upgrades etc. The current planning by JPO envisages 2 of these in North America, 1-2 in Europe and 1 in the Asia Pacific region. These will still be required regardless of the operating costs coming down as predicted and the Italian FACO is still a prime candidate to take the role of the European one.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If prospective European F-35 operators still consider the Italian FACO facility as their best option for maintenance, that somewhat diminishes the strength of the USMC's claims.

The Marine Corps is talking about limiting a level of Maintenance the Italian FACO facility wasn't going to be handling in the first place. So the effect on the facility is near zilch.

There are 3 levels of maintenance in US service (O, I, D):

http://www.navair.navy.mil/logistics/4790/library/Chapter%2003.pdf

Chapter 3.1 gives a good over view and only gets more detailed from there.

If Di bregante was aware of the maintenance levels he sure didn't bother to explain them, nor research exactly what the Marine Corps was talking about, nor explore exactly what the FACO facility's purpose is.

It was a little like assuming that you changing your own oil suddenly meant your mechanic was out of business. I change my own oil and still have to take my car to the shop at regular intervals as there are many higher level repairs and maintenance I can't make myself. or that my car mechanic was going to make a lot of money changing the oil (my mechanic doesn't offer that as a service in the first place even if I wanted to.)

Maybe thats why I have had such a hard time grasping the complaint, I just see money saved, and the Italians being "cut out" of work they were never planning to do in the first place. :-\ I thought people would be happier with the news, honestly. I think its a lack of understanding about how fighters are maintained and exactly how the Corps is saving.

 

[Radical]

Something about the F-35's max speed that doesn't make much sense. There's been much complaining about how F-35 is limited to only Mach 1.6 and blah blah blah, but according to the official F-35 documents, the max speed is stated to be around 1200 mph. That speed is close to Mach 1.6 at sea level, but at 30k feet, that's closer to Mach 1.8. Since I don't think F-35, let along any fighter except for maybe MiG-31, will be doing Mach 1.6 at low level, so something doesn't seem right here.

 

[sferrin]

Something about the F-35's max speed that doesn't make much sense. There's been much complaining about how F-35 is limited to only Mach 1.6 and blah blah blah, but according to the official F-35 documents, the max speed is stated to be around 1200 mph. That speed is close to Mach 1.6 at sea level, but at 30k feet, that's closer to Mach 1.8. Since I don't think F-35, let along any fighter except for maybe MiG-31, will be doing Mach 1.6 at low level, so something doesn't seem right here.

I would love to see a youtube video of a Mig-31 attempting Mach 1.6 on the deck. Would be a very expensive, "hold ma beer" moment.

 

[Radical]

Something about the F-35's max speed that doesn't make much sense. There's been much complaining about how F-35 is limited to only Mach 1.6 and blah blah blah, but according to the official F-35 documents, the max speed is stated to be around 1200 mph. That speed is close to Mach 1.6 at sea level, but at 30k feet, that's closer to Mach 1.8. Since I don't think F-35, let along any fighter except for maybe MiG-31, will be doing Mach 1.6 at low level, so something doesn't seem right here.

I would love to see a youtube video of a Mig-31 attempting Mach 1.6 on the deck. Would be a very expensive, "hold ma beer" moment.

Whatever, you get my point. The 1200 mph figure came from F-35 Fast Facts.

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12648/f-35_fast_facts.pdf

 

[Dragon029]

The 1200mph is noted with a '~', meaning that that's only a rough velocity. It is fairly high, but 1100mph at 30,000ft equates to Mach 1.62 and at 20,000ft, Mach 1.56.

Perhaps they simply went with the 1200mph figure as a nice approximate figure? If questioned, they could just state that 'the figure depends on certain atmospheric conditions' or something along those lines.

 

[Arjen]

Connecting two a few news items:

September 30, 2013 - Inspector General's report (pdf): Quality Assurance Assessment of the F-35 Lightning II Program

Findings

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. This could adversely affect aircraft performance, reliability, maintainability, and ultimately program cost. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (Lockheed Martin) and its subcontractors did not follow disciplined AS9100 Quality Management System practices, as evidenced by 363 findings, which contained 719 issues.
The Joint Program Office did not:

•Ensure that Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors were applying rigor to design, manufacturing, and quality assurance processes.
•Flow down critical safety item requirements.
•Ensure that Lockheed Martin flowed down quality assurance and technical requirements to subcontractors.
•Establish an effective quality assurance organization.
•Ensure that the Defense Contract Management Agency perform adequate quality assurance oversight.
In addition, the Defense Contract Management Agency did not:

•Sufficiently perform Government quality assurance oversight of F-35 contractors.

March, 2013 GAO report on F-35.

from pages 7, 8 of GAO report:

...[the F-35 program's] Earned Value Management System (EVMS) corrective action plan was not approved. EVMS compliance is a long-standing issue and concerns all Lockheed Martin aircraft produced for DOD, not just the F-35. In 2007, the Defense Contract Management Agency, the agency responsible for auditing defense contractors’ systems, found Lockheed Martin’s process did not meet 19 of 32 required guidelines and, in October 2010, withdrew the determination of compliance. While acknowledging that Lockheed Martin has made improvements, DCMA in 2012 found the company still deficient on 13 guidelines. EVMS is an important, established tool for tracking costs, controlling schedule, identifying problems early, and providing accurate product status reports. DOD requires its use by major defense suppliers to facilitate good insight and oversight of the expenditure of government dollars.

Possibly related to that, from page 17 of GAO report:

Going forward, effective management of the global supply chain is vital to boost production rates to planned levels, to control costs, and maintain quality. The aircraft contractor is developing a global supply chain of more than 1,500 suppliers. Effective supplier management will be critical to efficient and quality manufacturing at higher annual rates. Currently, a relatively small number of suppliers provide most of the material, but that is expected to change in the future, especially as international firms get more of the business. Management of international supplier base presents unique challenges, including (1) differing U.S. and foreign government policies, (2) differences in business practices, and (3) foreign currency exchange rates. These can complicate relationships and hinder effective supply chain integration.

In an item announcing the Inspector General's report posted by Bloomberg:

Lockheed and the subcontractors are taking specific steps to respond to 343 findings and recommended corrective actions, the summary said, without disclosing the nature of the failings found.
As of yesterday, 269 of the 343 “corrective action plans” have been fully implemented, according to data provided to the inspector general by the Pentagon’s F-35 program office.
All of the corrective action plans are scheduled to be in place by April, according to Laura Siebert a Lockheed spokeswoman.

Is the lack of compliance with the DoD's Earned Value Management System, as noted in the March 2013 GAO report, related to the quality control problems noted in the Inspector General's report?

If so, is compliance with EVMS covered by the “corrective action plans”, and to what extent is the F-35 project currently complying with EVMS?
<edit> EVMS is Lockheed-Martin's own internal business system, which was found to be non-compliant with some of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) guidelines.

Questions therefore should be:
- Is EVMS's non-compliance with DCMA's guidelines related to the quality control problems noted in the Inspector General's report?
- If so, is EVMS's compliance with DCMA guidelines covered by the “corrective action plans”, and to what extent is EVMS currently complying with DCMA guidelines?

Some, but not all answers can be found in this September 16 item from Reuters: Pentagon cites progress in fixing Lockheed F-35 business system

The Pentagon has reduced its withholding of progress payments on Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet program to 2 percent from 5 percent after the company made "significant progress" toward fixing a deficient internal business system.
[...]
The agency told Lockheed in a letter dated August 30 that it decided to reduce the withholding amount after seeing "significant progress" toward improvements in the company's earned value management system (EVMS), which helps the company track cost, schedule and other risks to the F-35 program.
[...]
DCMA said it expected Lockheed to complete work on the one unfinished item, which was linked to the company's analysis of subcontractor schedule, and three other, final issues, on or before the targeted completion date of December 19. The 2 percent withholding would be lifted once those items had been addressed, and all significant deficiencies had been corrected, DCMA said in the letter.
[...]
The DCMA, which has been critical of Lockheed's earned value management system since 2007, increased the withholding last year to 5 percent from 2 percent after the company failed to make timely and significant progress on fixing the system.

 

[GTX]

Sounds like some one is trying to brew a storm in a teacup over issues that were investigated over 10mths ago and which are more to do with paperwork/admin and related issues rather than real aircraft hardware or performance and which have been largely addressed (and reported as such by both customer and contractor)... :

 

[Arjen]

Just connecting the dots. Quality control appears to have been noted by the US government as a serious issue with the F-35 program since at least 2007. That's when Lockheed-Martin was first docked 2% of progress payments because LM was found wanting. The percentage by which payments were docked was raised to 5% last year, and stands today at 2% - because LM, though having made progress on quality control, is still found wanting.

Now, for the first time, F-35 program quality control is the main subject for a report. A report which has been described by the Program Office as “thorough, professional, well-documented and useful to the F-35 Enterprise”

I'm very curious as to what next year's report on quality control will show.

 

[GTX]

And I am very curious how you are linking Quality Control to EVMS. Do you understand what EVMS is?

 

[Arjen]

EVMS appears to be a cost-tracking system, which should help determine how program funds are being spent. Knowing what your funds are buying you is essential for running any project, the problem seems to be a lack of transparency: information is not reaching the customer in the way the customer desires. The customer reduces payments to the contractor, until such time that the information provided by the contractor attains the quality the customer desires.

Quality control isn't just about delivering the right products at the right time, it's also about being aware of it. This awareness can only exist if relevant information is provided.

In my book, it's not only the product that needs to be right: it should be the result of a process that can be continually monitored for operating in the right way. Cybernetics at work. Defective feedback will always get you into trouble.

Quality control of the product, quality control of the process.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The issue I have with the report (or at least all the gnashing of teeth over it) is that the report is mostly about paperwork problems and the reporting of it makes is sound like the are problems with the parts themselves.

 

[GTX]

The issue I have with the report (or at least all the gnashing of teeth over it) is that the report is mostly about paperwork problems and the reporting of it makes is sound like the are problems with the parts themselves.

Exactly. And moreso, this is a report based on investigations undertaken over 10mths ago!! A lot has happened since. to me, people are trying to make an issue out of it because that is about all they have been reduced to. The next thing we will see is that people start going through Lockheed's trash and jump up and down because they find a document that hasn't been spellchecked...

 

[GTX]

EVMS appears to be a cost-tracking system, which should help determine how program funds are being spent.

"Appears to be"?

Earned Value Management (EVM) is a Project Management tool. It is commonly used in Defenc(s)e projects and allows monitoring of performance in regard to scope, cost and schedule. Whilst useful, its outputs are only as good as the information put in – this is an area where just about every program I have seen (both directly and indirectly) struggles with when it comes down to EVM (as with many so called issues, the F-35 is not unique in this regard!). Moreover, it is simply an indicator of performance, NOT the be all/end all. It is NOT a replacement for Project Management. In my experience, it is also something that is often misunderstood and therefore misused by many people... :

Knowing what your funds are buying you is essential for running any project, the problem seems to be a lack of transparency: information is not reaching the customer in the way the customer desires. The customer reduces payments to the contractor, until such time that the information provided by the contractor attains the quality the customer desires.

Remember that LM’s EVMS is primarily for LM’s use. If they believe they have sufficient information to manage the F-35 development/production then that should be sufficient. There are all manner of reports/tools/measures used by both LM and JPO to monitor the F-35 program and EVM is just one part of that. DO NOT confuse product quality or even program management quality with perceived quality of the EVM inputs/outputs

Quality control isn't just about delivering the right products at the right time, it's also about being aware of it. This awareness can only exist if relevant information is provided.

And EVM is only a very, very small part of that. There are a multitude of other processes/tools in place across the many companies involved with the F-35 right down to individual metal providers. You have systems such as ISO9000, AS9100, Nadcap, individual supplier audits and compliance programs etc, etc. there is no-one supplying parts for this program or doing work on it that isn't exposed to some degree of quality control...in most cases multiple times over!

In fact, if you wanted to one could make an argument that all of these elements aimed at ensuring quality and program management are all adding to the final cost….as for whether that cost outweighs the benefit derived though is a argument that no-one is prepared for.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

In fact, if you wanted to one could make an argument that all of these elements aimed at ensuring quality and program management are all adding to the final cost….as for whether that cost outweighs the benefit derived though is a argument that no-one is prepared for.

 

[Arjen]

Knowing what your funds are buying you is essential for running any project, the problem seems to be a lack of transparency: information is not reaching the customer in the way the customer desires. The customer reduces payments to the contractor, until such time that the information provided by the contractor attains the quality the customer desires.

Remember that LM’s EVMS is primarily for LM’s use. If they believe they have sufficient information to manage the F-35 development/production then that should be sufficient. There are all manner of reports/tools/measures used by both LM and JPO to monitor the F-35 program and EVM is just one part of that. DO NOT confuse product quality or even program management quality with perceived quality of the EVM inputs/outputs

Remember that EVMS's non-compliance with DoD guidelines was the reason progress payments to LM have been and are being docked.

LM may have thought EVMS-as-it-was was good enough, DoD thought different. DoD funds the program, DoD calls the shots.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The point of the quality control process is to know that the parts meet the required standards, it is all well and good saying that the process is adding expense or that the criticism is of the process and not the parts themselves but it becomes impossible to know whether the parts are actually up to standard until they do/do not successfully reach the end of their design lives.

And ultimately the QC process is designed to enforce cost control by ensuring that money isn't wasted moving sub-standard parts through the system.

 

[GTX]

Remember that LM’s EVMS is primarily for LM’s use. If they believe they have sufficient information to manage the F-35 development/production then that should be sufficient. There are all manner of reports/tools/measures used by both LM and JPO to monitor the F-35 program and EVM is just one part of that. DO NOT confuse product quality or even program management quality with perceived quality of the EVM inputs/outputs

Remember that EVMS's non-compliance with DoD guidelines was the reason progress payments to LM have been and are being docked.

LM may have thought EVMS-as-it-was was good enough, DoD thought different. DoD funds the program, DoD calls the shots.

Which still does not alter the fact that the EVM system is primarily for LM's use... : .

 

[GTX]

The point of the quality control process is to know that the parts meet the required standards,

Well, actually to try to ensure that, but close enough. I am not disagreeing (nor did I above).

it is all well and good saying that the process is adding expense

What I have said is something felt by many in the industry. In fact in some cases companies have pulled back from things such as Nadcap since it is adding expense that is not recovered in any measurable improvement in yield/quality or orders/earnings (the ultimately important measure for any business). Don't get me wrong here: we are not saying that all quality control needs to be done away with. Smart businesses welcome quality control regimes since it is beneficial to the bottom line. What I am saying is that at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns - especially when you start adding system on top of system (ISO9000 + AS9100 + Nadcap + EASA + Customer Supplier Audits + + +). Each one of these elements adds expense. At some point you stop seeing any additional return.

that the criticism is of the process and not the parts themselves

The original issue was that the EVMS was postulated as being an indicator of poor quality. That is incorrect! To try to deduce anything regarding "part quality" from an EVM report or EVMS is like trying to use a picture of Earth from orbit to deduce the political discussions in Washington.

but it becomes impossible to know whether the parts are actually up to standard until they do/do not successfully reach the end of their design lives.

Actually it is reasonably possible through things such as testing and various well recognised Engineering/Statistical processes. B)

And ultimately the QC process is designed to enforce cost control by ensuring that money isn't wasted moving sub-standard parts through the system.

That still does not alter what I said regarding diminishing returns. There is a reason why companies have balked at proceeding with some of the quality regimes being proposed and why others have even removed some. At the end of the day though, it becomes yet another case of Risk Management and ensuring that a business case s sound.

 

[Arjen]

The original issue was that the EVMS was postulated as being an indicator of poor quality.

Which I still think it is.

That is incorrect! To try to deduce anything regarding "part quality" from an EVM report or EVMS is like trying to use a picture of Earth from orbit to deduce the political discussions in Washington.

I've been doing some close reading, and if that is how you interpret my original message, you've misunderstood me.
As I pointed out in a later message, a project's quality is as much about the project's product as the way that product is made.

The fact that Pratt & Whitney's F135 program has just been decertified by DCMA for non-compliance with DoD guidelines on EVMS, resulting in a 5% reduction in DoD payments to P&W, is an indicator of how much importance DoD attaches to the information provided by EVMS.

If the process is lacking in quality, this is fairly likely to affect its product.