Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Jet Fighter Programs Beset by Prohibitive Rising Costs
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE ^ | JIM MANNION

Posted on 04/08/2005 4:20:50 AM PDT by Paul Ross




U.S. Jet Fighter Programs Beset by Prohibitive Rising Costs


The U..S. Air Force's jet fighter programs; the F/A-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter are beset by soaring costs, development delays and changing world threats that raise questions about their viability," Congress's investigative arm said April 6.

The Government Accountability Office said in a report that the original business case for the F/A-22 has been "severely weakened, and that the original business rationale for the JSF is unexecutable."

The uncertainty surrounding the two fighter programs, which together require future investments of 240 billion dollars, have broad implications for the Defense Department's program to modernize the air force's fixed-wing tactical fighters, the report said.

They raised questi ons “as to whether overarching goals to reduce average aircraft age and ownership costs while maintaining force structure are now achievable," the report said.

Decreases in quantities (of aircraft) alone about 30 percent since original plans raise questions about how well the aircraft will complement our tactical air forces in the future, it said.

The idea behind the $245 billion JSF program the Pentagon's costliest was to bring down the cost per aircraft by developing a common fighter with variants for the air force, navy and marine corps. Foreign partners were brought in to add overseas sales.

The Pentagon originally planned to acquire 3,000 of the aircraft, but has since whittled down its projected buy by 535 aircraft.

The aircraft has experienced design and weight problems that have led to increased costs and schedule delays, the report said. Moreover, the program's customers are not sure how many aircraft they will need.

"The combination of cost overruns and quantity reductions has already diluted DOD's (Department of Defense's buying power and made the original JSF business case unexecutable," the report said.

Warning that most critical technologies will not have been proven in time for a scheduled decision in 2007 on whether to begin low-rate initial production, the GAO urged that the program take time to gain greater knowledge about the risks before proceeding.

The F/A-22, which began development in 1986 and faces a decision this month on whether to go to full production, was originally developed to vie with Soviet fighters for control of the skies.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the air force has been forced to adapt the air-to-air fighter to a much different global strike mission.

Plans to add attack capabilities to the aircraft have driven up costs.

The Pentagon has reduced planned purchases of the fighter to fewer than 180, down from 750 in its original plans, and in December decided to halt procurement of the aircraft in 2008 rather than 2011.

"Changing threats, missions and requirements have severely weakened the original business case (for the aircraft)," the report said.

"Program milestones have slipped substantially, development costs have more than doubled and a modernization program was added," it said.

The recent budget decision to terminate procurement after fiscal year 2008, the prospect of additional cuts because of ceilings on program cost, and upcoming defense reviews have significant implications for the program's viability and the future of modernization efforts, it said.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: budget; f22; f35; fa22; govwatch; miltech; missioncreep; overruns; raptor; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
Mission Creep. The air force program managers who sabotaged the F-22 by adding the requirements for strike capability need to be ejected from extremely high altitude without a parachute.

Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld needs to have a Come-to-Jesus talk with the Armed Forces committee. These deliberately-inefficient-and costly program limits are clearly arbitrary and not driven by defense needs. He seems to be missing the big picture...missing forest for the trees...and all this while he is in the swamp up to his ass in alligators.

1 posted on 04/08/2005 4:20:50 AM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

"...in the swamp up to his ass in alligators."

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.


2 posted on 04/08/2005 4:28:19 AM PDT by Certified Horticulturist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; miliantnutcase; Starwolf; fooman; brooklin; longtermmemmory; TalBlack; fireforeffect; ...

Ping


3 posted on 04/08/2005 4:32:34 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A hangover is the wrath of grapes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

This article flies in the face of the fact that a congressional comittee just about a week ago gave the go ahead for full rate production.


4 posted on 04/08/2005 4:36:09 AM PDT by ProudVet77 (It's boogitty boogitty boogitty season!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

I recall a story some time ago by some anti trade 'Conservatives' in the house trying to keep all parts of the aircraft built in America. I'm not sure if this bill passed or not, it was quite a stupid idea, cuz there were some companies that made specific parts that were the only companies in the world that did so (and they weren't american).


5 posted on 04/08/2005 4:37:42 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Translation: American fighters, despite their supposed superiority, will cost too much. Buy our French Rafale and Mirage planes instead!


6 posted on 04/08/2005 4:40:41 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Expensive stuff is expensive.


7 posted on 04/08/2005 4:43:07 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Cleverly Arranging 1's And 0's Since 11110111011...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
YEEEEEE-HAW!


8 posted on 04/08/2005 4:46:44 AM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Mission Creep. The air force program managers who sabotaged the F-22 by adding the requirements for strike capability need to be ejected from extremely high altitude without a parachute.

If you'll recall, the "strike capability" was added in order to protect the F-22 from the budget-cutter's axe the last time the project was seriously threatened... Now it can't be undone.

9 posted on 04/08/2005 4:50:45 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Actually, you appear to not remember very well. You are likely thinking of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R. California) who tried to restore the 75% U.S.-content requirements that prevailed when Reagan was President. Rumsfeld went ballistic at the House hearings, and threatened on the President's behalf a veto.

In point of fact, there is no "technology" in these aircraft that is not invented here. Inclusive of plane tires, one of the primary things no longer manufactured here at all. Manufacturing outside the country is merely a political sop to the foreign customer-prospects. The JSF is the worst offender, as it was explicitly intended to be a huge export, unlike the F-22.

Duncan Hunter is a patriot. The Cato organization isn't known for being terribly concerned about such. Too doctrinnaire.

10 posted on 04/08/2005 4:50:55 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A hangover is the wrath of grapes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Over the past twenty years, whenever we have taken military action, we have assumed complete control of the airspace. This comes as a result of superior airpower. In an age when any tinhorn dictator with a few bucks can buy the latest technology from the French or the former communist block, we must continue to push the technological envelope to ensure this superiority.

These R&D programs are long term and very expensive. Not to say that our development programs don't contain a lot of fat, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Failure to maintain a technological superiority will cost us in lives of our forces in future conflicts. Iran, North Korea and China are watching ... and waiting.

11 posted on 04/08/2005 4:55:15 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
The real nemesis of the plane's deployment appears to be another California Congressman, named Lewis. I.e.,:


 

Current Issue
 
Archives
Back Issues
Editorials
The Chart Page
Verbatim
The Keeper File
Valor
Enola Gay Controversy
  Chronology
  Reports & Analysis
  Articles & Editorials
Covers

Almanacs
 
Special Topics
 
Special Reports
 
Search
 
Advertising
 
About the Magazine

November 1999 Vol. 82, No. 11

F-22 Survives a Stealth Attack

After weeks of dispute, Congress sustained the F-22 fighter with a new $2.5 billion appropriation.

"I'm satisfied that the F-22 is funded enough to keep it going," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee and the F-22's key backer.

Lawmakers voted the funds as part of a $267.7 billion Defense Department appropriation (not including military construction) for Fiscal 2000.

The fighter program had been in turmoil since midsummer, when a small band of House appropriators, led by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), launched a surprise attack on its production budget. The House chopped out $1.8 billion needed to buy the first production F-22s and approved only $1.2 billion for research. In contrast, the Senate had approved the full $3 billion request.

F-22 backers warned that the House, though it claimed to be seeking only a "pause" in the program, was actually killing it.

Senate and House negotiators on Oct. 6 shook hands over a compromise. Technically, it postpones fighter production (a House demand) from 2000 to 2001. However, it protects the production option by providing the following amounts:

  • $1.9 billion in development funds, available not only for research but also to build six so-called "test" F-22s in 2000.
  • $277 million in advance-procurement funds, to buy or build long-lead items for 10 more F-22s to be procured in 2001.
  • $300 million in reserve funds, intended to cover contract-termination liabilities but also usable, in time, for aircraft.

A final go/no-go decision on production will come in 2001 and will depend on whether the F-22 during the next year meets an array of test goals for critical areas such as avionics. The Senate-House agreement specifically precludes production until the avionics software is successfully flown in an F-22.

"The testing language is quite strong," Lewis said.

The Air Force wants the F-22 to replace the F-15, which will have been in service for 30 years by the time the Raptor becomes operational. USAF already has spent more than $20 billion to develop the F-22. It plans to produce 339 of the fighters, at a marginal cost of $85 million per fighter.

Funny Figures in the F-22 Fighter Flap

"With a most recent cost estimate of $200 million for each plane, we need to be asking if [building the F-22 fighter] is our most important priority."

So said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R­Calif.), chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, just after his panel zeroed F-22 production funds last July. Lewis and other critics repeatedly cite the $200 million figure.

As the chart shows, per-aircraft cost can be calculated in nine ways. None reaches the level of $200 million. The highest figure is $184 million, but it is attained by using inflated dollars and including nonrecurring costs such as development and military construction.

Critics frequently imply that $200 million is the Raptor's "sticker price"-what it will cost to buy each new F-22 from this point forward. The chart shows that flyaway cost (excluding sunk costs and inflation) comes to $85 million per F-22-not much more than what would be spent for a new, but far less capable, F-15E.

F-22 Fighter Unit Cost Base Year 1990 Dollars This Year 1999 Dollars Then-Year Inflated Dollars

Flyaway Cost

+ aircraft
+ management
+ nonrecurring start-up
+ allowance for changes

$70 m $85 m $98 m

Procurement Cost

+ all of the above, plus ...
+ contractor services
+ support
+ other government costs

$84 m $101 m $117 m

Program Acquisition Cost

+ all of the above, plus ...
+ research & development
+ military construction

$142 m $172 m $184 m
 

Source: USAF, Fiscal 2000 Budget

-Robert S. Dudney

 


Copyright Air Force Association. All rightsreserved.

 

   
 
 



AFA is an independent, nonprofit organization promoting public understanding of air and space power.

SEARCH  |  CONTACT US  |  MEMBERS  |  EVENTS  |  JOIN AFA  |  HOME

The Air Force Association, 1501 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA 22209-1198
Contact Webmaster | Design by Steven Levins | Photos courtesy of USAF

 

12 posted on 04/08/2005 5:02:20 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A hangover is the wrath of grapes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
The plane is affordable compared to the alternative purchase. The AirForce magazine's point back in 1999 is one the USAF has made consistently, and nothing has really changed except the cost increase due to requiring strike capability...

Critics frequently imply that $200 million is the Raptor's "sticker price"-what it will cost to buy each new F-22 from this point forward. The chart shows that flyaway cost (excluding sunk costs and inflation) comes to $85 million per F-22-not much more than what would be spent for a new, but far less capable, F-15E.

13 posted on 04/08/2005 5:07:34 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A hangover is the wrath of grapes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ProudVet77
This article flies in the face of the fact that a congressional comittee just about a week ago gave the go ahead for full rate production.

This is a GAO report just released this week. Anyways, what are you claiming is "full rate" production nowadays? 180 planes total...(Rummy's farcical new number) or the original buy of 750?

14 posted on 04/08/2005 5:20:19 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A hangover is the wrath of grapes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Please un-ping me on USAF and USN stuff.

I'm an Army type.

If it flies, shoot them all down and sort them out on the ground.

If it floats, it can sink.
15 posted on 04/08/2005 5:29:55 AM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect

If its U.S. forces on the ground it is under U.S. air cover... and if it isn't, it soon won't be on the ground! :-)


16 posted on 04/08/2005 5:32:25 AM PDT by Paul Ross (A hangover is the wrath of grapes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Who knows what is in the works? It is quite possible that work on a new unmanned fighter/attack plane is being developed that will make these aircraft obsolete, and the money could be used more effeciently elsewhere.


17 posted on 04/08/2005 5:40:35 AM PDT by NeonKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

This is the same thing I have read with every fighter program this country has ever developed for over 40 years. Blah...blah...blah...and the next thing you know they are deployed to fighter wings, and they are considered the premier fighters by the world. In the end the military brass will get it figured out, and our fighting men and women will again have jets that will be dominant for decades.


18 posted on 04/08/2005 5:44:01 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudVet77

I saw that article to. You are 100% correct.


19 posted on 04/08/2005 5:45:23 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
...and just to extend you point a little bit further, fighter programs tend to get extended once the assembly lines are up 'n running. This is because a fighter plane that is in production becomes a "jobs" issue for the congress-critters regardless of party affiliation. Therefore, all this arguing about the final F-22 fleet size is largely wasted effort. The USAF will get the numbers that it wants when all is said & done.
20 posted on 04/08/2005 5:54:09 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson