Sky Talk

Dueling views on state of F-35 program

The recent dust up over rising costs and lengthening delays in development of the F-35 joint strike fighter, chronicled in a Star-Telegram story, has gotten a lot of attention in the defense press and even the New York Times.

Then on Monday oft-quoted Washington D.C. defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a mildly hawkish defense think tank and strongly hawkish advocate for the defense industry, took the press and others to task for making much ado about not much and not appreciating how well run the F-35 program is.

Thompson argues the F-35 is now being targeted by the anti-defense types just like the F-22 before it and there's really nothing much wrong with the way the program is going.

If you don't follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble. The $300 billion program to develop a stealthy, multi-role tactical aircraft for three U.S. military services and at least nine allies has been the focus of negative coverage since approximately April 6, when defense secretary Robert Gates announced the Air Force would buy no more F-22 fighters. Almost overnight, critics who had been assailing the F-22 trained their sights on the F-35 and resumed firing.

The F-35, Thompson says, "isn't really all that troubled, and Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter will see the bureaucratic politics for what they are." He then lists four reasons why the F-35 program "is going to turn out fine" including this gem: "There is no alternative." 

Thompson, by the way, acknowledges that in addition to his think tank duties he is also a consultant to Lockheed, among other contractors.

Now Aviation Week veteran writer Bill Sweetman, no fan of the F-35 program, says Thompson's argument "makes no sense."

The first of four points in the brief is that "there is no alternative" to the JSF. Even if that's true (Boeing would disagree in the case of the Navy, and lots of people in the case of export customers) it does not mean that the program is going well. At best, the trashing of alternatives implies that JSF will be continued no matter what, at any cost and on any timescale. But that's not success:  with flat budgets, such an outcome will gut US and allied air power.

The good doctor's second point is that other programs (like the A400M) are doing worse than the F-35, which is "months behind schedule".

What schedule exactly?

The F-35 is months, in some respects almost a year, behind the schedule established in May 2008, which was a year later than the 2005 schedule, which in turn was 18 months behind the original schedule that was set in 2001. 

It's a good debate. .

- Bob Cox
 

Australian government comments on F-35 decision

When the government of Australia announced last week it had committed to buying an initial lot of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters, we sent the Australian Ministry of Defence some questions. The answers came back too late for inclusion in the Star-Telegram story that ran Thanksgiving Day.

So we'll post the entire exchange to this blog. And we'll also post some followup information from the primary opponents in Australia of buying the F-35.

Here's the response of the Australian government to our questions:

Australia has been a partner in developing the F-35 from the inception of the program and has invested its own money. Were other aircraft types considered to meet Australia’s future combat needs? Which ones?

The Australian decision to acquire the JSF was made after an extensive analysis of all potential future air combat aircraft. That decision was originally made in 2002 when we entered the System Development & Development phase of the JSF Program and formally re-confirmed in the Air Combat Capability Review that was conducted in 2008.

Throughout that time, however, we have continued to monitor developments in other air combat programs to ensure our decision remained valid.

This is a decision of policy, correct? Not a formal order for aircraft?

This is an acquisition decision – which includes funding approval – for the first 14 aircraft. Placing orders for the 14 aircraft will be done via the US-led JSF Project Office in conjunction with the US and other partners.

Have the U.S. and Australian governments agreed on price and terms of the F-35 purchase?

Australia will pay the same price as the US Government. The USand all partners will buy aircraft under the same contracts placed by the US-led JSF Project Office. For the next several years, the prices of aircraft under these contracts are being determined annually. Eventually acquisition will be via multi-year orders, again in collaboration with all other partners.

When do you anticipate placing a formal order?

Orders are placed progressively. Australia’s first aircraft will be part of the Low Rate Initial Production lot 6 contract to be delivered in 2014. We will identify our requirements for this contract in 2010 to allow ordering of necessary long-lead items. Subsequent aircraft will be ordered on an annual basis until it is agreed that the JSF Program is sufficiently mature to support a “multi-year” contact. In the early years sustainment is also contracted on an annual basis.

Has funding for the acquisition been approved by Parliament?

In the Australian system Parliament does not need to approve the acquisition, that is up to the Government. Government has approved funding for the first 14 aircraft and associated infrastructure and support.

Are there potential political/policy steps to be taken that could result in a change of policy regarding F-35 acquisition?

The Australian Government has stated that it will acquire around 100 JSFs in the context of the 2009 Defence White Paper. The recent acquisition decision – i.e. authorisation for funding – is for the first 14 aircraft. Additional authorisation decisions will be required for the remaining aircraft.

Some Australian groups (Air Power Australia) have been vocal in their criticisms of the F-35. Have those criticisms been considered in reaching this decision?

Defence and Government take into account all informed commentary in making such major decisions

Are there any concerns about the U.S. DoD decision not to release F-35 software codes to buyers?

Australiahas never sought access to source code of JSF software. For commonality and affordability reasons we want to stay common with the core JSF Program. What we do need, however, is the ability to re-program mission data libraries with our data to meet specific sovereign requirements. Ability to do that has been agreed by the US Government.

Are there any concerns about the delays in development and flight testing progress of F-35?

All delays are of concern but there is also very good progress in many areas. Australia has considerable schedule buffer to deal with all realistic schedule risk.

 

- Bob Cox

Aussies commit to F-35 acquisition

Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government have apparently found their first foreign buyer for the F-35 joint strike fighter.

The Australian government has approved plans to buy an initial lot of 14 F-35A combat jets, according to a report issued by the Ministry of Defence. The A-model is the conventional takeoff aircraft that will be operated by the U.S. Air Force and most foreign buyers.

The Government has approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters and infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing, at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion.

“Approval of this first batch of JSF aircraft is evidence of the Rudd Government’s strong commitment to defence and our commitment to implementing the Defence White Paper,” Senator Faulkner said.

Approval of the next batch of aircraft and all necessary support and enabling capabilities, sufficient to establish three operational squadrons and a training squadron of CTOL JSF, will be considered in 2012. This will fulfil our White Paper commitment to acquire three operational squadrons comprising not fewer than 72 aircraft.

Australia's announcement comes as most of the news in the U.S. in recent weeks has focused on continued delays in production and testing of jets and Pentagon estimates of higher costs to complete development and testing.

Australia eventually plans to buy 100 F-35s, in order to have three combat-ready squadrons totaling 72 planes. The F-35 will replace F/A-18s in the Australian arsenal. The government has yet to place its order with Lockheed, but said it expects to take delivery of the first plane in 2014.

A strong,vocal opposition has emerged in Australia to the F-35 but the government said the decision was made following "many years of unprecedented evaluation and planning by all nine countries involved in the JSF’s development."

This just in from the loyal F-35 opposition:

This is a courageous move on the part of the Australian Government, particularly given the flawed data and marketing spin upon which this decision has been based.

At a unit procurement cost (UPC) in excess of $200 million, in 2014 dollars, this decision confirms the real price that Air Power Australia (APA) and other experts around the world have been predicting and brings into serious question evidence put before the Australian Parliament over the past 12 months, such as “I would be surprised if Australia were to pay any more than A$75 million per aircraft, in 2008 dollars, at an exchange rate of 0.92”.

Though we wish it were not so, the just so flawed JSF Program is a ‘perfect storm’ which will make the global financial crisis (GFC) look like a mere stumble.  While the GFC and its more voracious sibling, the World Economic Re-alignment (WER), have brought the concept of sovereign financial risk into stark relief, the JSF will put the very sovereignty of western nations, including the USA, at serious risk.

- Bob Cox

U.S. won't turn over F-35 software codes

In a decision that probably won't completely quell a long running source of irritation between the Department of Defense and our British allies, the U.S. government has apparently decided it will not give F-35 joint strike fighter buyers, even those who've spent their own money developing the airplane, keys to the software codes for the high tech airplane.

According to a report in DoD Buzz, U.S. officials finally decided that giving the Brits the source codes "would, in the words of one close observer of the program, “turn the British JSF into a Trojan Horse.” The message this source would send the British: “Yes we love you… but who are those third party nationals from the EU working for you? And how do we know we can trust them?” 

Reuters also has a version of the story.

No other country is getting the so-called source code, the key to the plane's electronic brains, Jon Schreiber, who heads the program's international affairs, told Reuters in an interview Monday.

"That includes everybody," he said, acknowledging this was not overly popular among the eight that have co-financed F-35 development -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

- Bob Cox

More on DoD F-35 deliberations

John Bennett at Defense News has filed a story on the meeting that Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, had with reporters today and his comments on the planning to resolve cost and schedule problems with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Carter, Bennett says, called the most recent cost estimates by DoD's analysts "very credible," even noting its 2008 program assessment correctly predicted events that have occurred in 2009. The analysts forecasts, "based in part on historical examples of how DoD fared on similar efforts - differ vastly from that foreseen by F-35 military and industry program managers." 

Carter said he is "trying to dig down and understand" the list of factors that contribute to the different views of the effort's future performance. Ultimately, he said, he would like to "end up somewhere in between" the two projections.

While the new strategy is not yet complete, the one thing this Pentagon leadership team will not do, Carter said, is "just lay in more money." Officials instead are "trying to get the best management" plan, he said.

Simply throwing money at the program without implementing new "management tools," he said, "is not responsible management."

Carter said he is emphasizing the need to build into the Pentagon's 2011 budget plan "realistic" F-35 cost and schedule projections for the next few years.

During the weekend meeting, which he called "constructive," Carter said he discussed with top Lockheed executives the need for a "realistic plan" and that he wants to see them show "a commitment to that plan." He also told them "that we need to address affordability," noting that "is the No. 1 thing Secretary Gates has stressed about JSF."

He said he also told Lockheed officials to show how recent productivity enhancements in the Fort Worth, Texas, plant where the F-35 is built could be reflected in the fighter jet's price.

- Bob Cox

 

 

F-35 flight test progress slow, again

 Lockheed Martin flew the fourth F-35 flight test aircraft (AF-1) twice last week, we're told, for a total of 2.2 hours. That's three flights in a week for nearly four hours. No report on whether there were any surprises or problems, but for the most part the test planes reportedly operate pretty well when they're flying.

Which brings us to the first F-35B STOVL test aircraft, which made it to Naval Air Station Patuxent River on November 15 but is apparently now back in incubation for maintenance issues. Here's what Lockheed told us:

BF-1 is undergoing scheduled maintenance ... prior to the initiation of flight test activities there. The aircraft will undergo the removal and replacement of the transparency removal system (TRS) detonation cord which is bonded to the canopy. This is a required process driven by the expiration of the canopy's detonation-cord material (the detonation cord helps remove the canopy from the pilot's path during an ejection). The process of the removal and replacement of the TRS is a 10-to-12 day operation. Additionally, maintainers will take advantage of the down-time to perform other maintenance on the jet. Return to flight is planned for the week of Dec. 7.

But now DOD Buzz reports work is required on another unplanned item or two. Seems a fuel valve was faulty and has to be replaced, which requires removing the engine. 

- Bob Cox

First report: DoD wants F-35 cost overrun sharing

Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News has a report today out of the Pentagon with comments from DoD weapons acquisition czar Ashton Carter following weekend meetings on F-35 program delays and rising cost estimates.

Lockheed Martin Corp. should assume some of the financial risk for any new cost overrun or schedule delay on the F-35 fighter, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer said today.

"We don’t want to be in a situation where the government bears the cost of schedule slips in a program all by itself, Ashton Carter, defense undersecretary for acquisition, told reporters at the Pentagon. "It’s reasonable that risk in the program be shared equitably, fairly."

Lockheed has a "cost-plus" development contract which requires the government to pay for any cost overruns. Lockheed Martin spokesman Jeff Adams had no immediate comment.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s estimated cost is almost $300 billion, which includes research, development and buying at least about 2,460 U.S. aircraft with common parts for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Carter said he’s reviewing a new independent cost estimate that’s "substantially similar" to one last year that predicted the program could cost about $16.5 billion more for production and development through 2015 and its development phase could extend two and a half years beyond October 2014, the current end date.

The estimates are based on worst-case scenarios for the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program. Carter said he met yesterday with company officials to review the new cost estimates, including what steps all parties can take to reduce them if needed.

"A lot" of what was estimated last year "has actually transpired," which gives the new estimate credibility, Carter said. "We are trying to get ourselves a plan" that Lockheed Martin will agree with, he said.

Aviation Week's Amy Butler now has a report up on the Ares blog:. It says in part:

JSF: Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter shed some light today on some of the options he is considering for restructuring the $300 billion U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter program.

A Joint Estimate Team (JET), made up of career cost and program evaluators at the Pentagon, has projected the Lockheed Martin JSF could be as much as $16 billion over budget and years late in meeting its in service dates.

*option 1 - Add more test aircraft to the program, which has 12 now planned, in order to burn test points in a "compressed" period of time to maintain schedule. Schedule is critical to keeping the international partners on board, but more flight test assets will cost more upfront.

*option 2 (not to be considered an either/or, this could be combined with option 1) -- add more software teams to the program, including an additional shift. Carter describes this as "blocking and tacking" with the software load.

- Bob Cox

Prescient commentary on F-35

In a column posted on Huffington Post, Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, reprises a long ago commentary on the political finagling that led to the Joint Strike Fighter.

The August 2000 commentary (The JSF: One More Card In The House) by Chuck Spinney, former Air Force officer and civilian Pentagon weapons program cost analyst, makes some interesting points that in hindsight were eerily prescient of the situation that could be developing today.

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), central to the Department of Defense's modernization
agenda, looks more and more like a case of "Here we go again." Why? Because:

* Without timely deliveries of 2,853 JSFs, beginning in 2007, the plan to modernize Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps tactical aviation (TacAir) forces won't happen.

* Without the promises of acquisition reform-cost savings, shorter development times,
increased production efficiencies, all without sacrificing capability-the economic
assumptions gluing together the entire DoD modernization program unravel.

The TacAir house of cards is the inevitable product of short-sighted decisions made as
the Cold War ended. In 1991 and 1992, the Air Force and Navy prematurely rushed the
F-22 and F/A-18E/F, respectively, into engineering and manufacturing development
(EMD) without determining how they would modernize the entire force over the long
term. In both cases, the aim was the same: build political support networks quickly before
the threat of a peace dividend became the skunk at the garden party - and hope that
the future would take care of itself.

And this part of the story is, well, we've seen it before. Full speed ahead and worry about the costs and consequences later.

In March 1999, the Congressional Budget Office reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee that JSF costs might be underestimated by as much a 50%; in March 2000, the General Accounting Office told Congress the development program should be lengthened to
reduce technical/cost risks: "To allow the JSF to proceed as planned - without maturing
critical technologies - would perpetuate conditions that have led to cost growth and
schedule delays in many prior DoD weapons system acquisition programs." The GAO claims DoD restructured the program so that the EMD decision will be made with even less information than originally planned, and the program has migrated toward the traditional practice of developing technologies and products concurrently.

Some interesting reading. Spinney, by the way, was a protege of the late Col. John Boyd, one of the fighter mafia leaders and a co-father of the F-16.

- Bob Cox

Fokker is back

Dutch conglomerate Stork Aerospace has decided to capitalize on its heritage and a great brand name and beginning in January will become Fokker Aerospace Group., the company announced Wednesday.

"This decision has been taken because the Fokker name is regarded in the international aerospace market as an extremely strong brand, and one that is inseparably linked around the world with aviation, aircraft building, constant innovation and entrepreneurship," the company said in its press release.

"The brand’s 90th anniversary is an excellent opportunity to make even better use of its unique image for the positioning of the companies. This strong, clear brand name will make a major contribution to that aim."

With 3,700 employees, the Fokker Aerospace Group is a major component and systems supplier to aircraft builders like Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and even Lockheed Martin. The company is a supplier to the F-35 joint strike fighter program and has maintained a presence in Fort Worth almost since the inception of the F-35 program.

In modern times company, probably best known for the Fokker Dr.I Triplane and Fokker D.VII fighters used by Germany in World War I, built a fleet of smaller airliners in use worldwide, including the Fokker 100s formerly flown by American Airlines.

- Bob Cox

Wanted: Way to cool off carrier decks

This isn't exactly breaking news to anyone who has paid attention to the V-22 Osprey program in recent years, but the Navy has found that when a jet engine dumps its exahust straight down onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or one its amphibious assault ships the heat does bad things to the steel.

Now, with the Marines MV-22 beginning to see service aboard ships and the looming entry into service a few years from now of the F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing variant, the Navy is hoping somebody out there can find a solution that will keep these planes from wrecking its flight decks.

Both the Office of Naval Research and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have put out bulletins calling for ideas from industry and researchers.

Here's the ONR's summary of the problem:

Navy studies have indicated that repeated deck buckling will cause deck failure at approximately 40 percent of planned ship life. With the upcoming deployment of he F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighter, it is anticipated that the engine exhaust plumes will have a severe thermo-mechanical impact on the non-skid surface and flight deck structure of ships. ...  During STOVL operations of these aircraft, engine exhaust is angled or positioned downward, directing the hot exhaust onto the horizontal deck surface, thereby subjecting that surface to higher than normal temperatures. For the MV-22 the localized region of heating, surrounded by regions of cooler deck plate and mechanical constraints of the deck structure (longitudinal and transverse stiffening beams are located under the deck plate) has lead to the observation of thermally induced buckling which appears after approximately 10 minutes of aircraft operation (while the aircraft is sitting on the deck turning rotors). Currently there are no available solutions.

And DARPA's hoped for technological solution:

Currently, there are no available strategies to mitigate deck buckling and thermal-mechanical deck failure other than heavy structural modifications.  The goal of this effort is to exploit thermal management technologies that incorporate a thermally and functionally stable non-skid surface which meets Navy requirements for application, safety, and performance.  Eligible technologies should consist of an integrated Thermal Management System (TMS) that mitigates the thermo-mechanical structural impact of the F-35B engine exhaust plumes.

See commentary at Aviation Week's Ares blog and at Defense Springboard.

- Bob Cox