F-35 Faces A Troubled 2010

Unlike Julius Caesar, the JSF program will survive March. However, it may suffer a couple more wounds to go with those received earlier this year. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) will be released and are likely to show a critical breach of Nunn-McCurdy cost-escalation limits, leading to a mandatory program review. Also, the Government Accountability Office is due to issue another report on the program. Given the program leaders’ cavalier dismissal of GAO’s earlier warnings, it is likely to be harsh and seasoned with “we told you so.” Before or around that time, another schedule slippage is almost certain.

Under Nunn-McCurdy, if a program’s estimated unit-procurement costs exceed 150% of what was planned at the outset (or “rebaselined” before 2005), the program must be recertified. This means the Pentagon must confirm that it is essential, costs are reasonable and management is in control of costs. The Pentagon also has to provide Congress with the costs of an alternative solution to the requirement—all within 60 days of notification.

The strongest warning yet of a Nunn-McCurdy breach came in a Jan. 19 letter to suppliers from Tom Burbage, executive vice president of the F-35 at Lockheed Martin, and Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin’s second-most-senior JSF leader. “We are working closely with the U.S. government to avoid a Nunn-McCurdy critical breach if possible,” the letter reads, “though these calculations are subject to factors beyond [our] control, including escalation indices, propulsion costs and the degree to which independent estimates are used for SAR forecasts.”

and are likely to show a critical breach of Nunn-McCurdy cost-escalation limits, leading to a mandatory program review. Also, the Government Accountability Office is due to issue another report on the program. Given the program leaders’ cavalier dismissal of GAO’s earlier warnings, it is likely to be harsh and seasoned with “we told you so.” Before or around that time, another schedule slippage is almost certain. Under Nunn-McCurdy, if a program’s estimated unit-procurement costs exceed 150% of what was planned at the outset (or “rebaselined” before 2005), the program must be recertified.

That sound you hear is PukinDog laughing ...he was a FReeper and ex navy pilot (lost during The Purges that afflict FreeRepublic every 4 or so years ....together with other FReepers like Poohbah) who was adamant that not only would the JSF be overweight but that it would also be far more expensive than originally projected. He was extremely anti the F-35, and he got quite a bit of flak for that. Well, with the rising costs of the project (at this rate it will be more expensive per unit than the F-22 had a larger number of Raptors been made ...similar to how the Virginia Class submarine ended up matching and exceeding the cost of the SeaWolf submarine, even though the Virginia was chosen and the SeaWolf cancelled because of costs ...although at least the Virginia's capability is analogous to that of the Seawolf, while the F-35's will not be to the Raptor's), the rolling timelines that seem to creep back unceasingly, the weight issues of the STOVL version, and noise from member/partner nations in the JSF project ...if Pukin was still around he certainly would be laughing at all who flamed him over this.

Well, with the rising costs of the project (at this rate it will be more expensive per unit than the F-22 had a larger number of Raptors been made ...similar to how the Virginia Class submarine ended up matching and exceeding the cost of the SeaWolf submarine, even though the Virginia was chosen and the SeaWolf cancelled because of costs

Ha! That's the comparison I draw. I wrote this on FR last July:

Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is stealthier, has a longer range radar, can supercruise with full ordnance load (F-35 can not), has a higher payload capability plus has external hardpoints that can be attached (many people are unaware of this), flies higher and faster, has longer range on internal fuel, is more maneuverable, is already in service while the F-35 program has just been pushed back two more years... and the best reason?

We know the fly-away costs of the F-22. It's about $140 million each. We don't know what it will be for the F-35 as the program is not complete, and there is the uncertainty of the amount of foreign buyers. I've seen figures from $85 million to $210 million. FYI, the latest F-15 from Boeing (the Silent Eagle) is $100 million each. In all of this, there is a navy parallel. Attack submarines. The Los Angeles class subs, in service since 1976 and cost $900 million, were to be replaced with about 30 Seawolf class subs which were designed around the same time as the F-22.

The Seawolf cost $2 billion each. They are the most advanced, quietest, fasteset, and deepest diving attack subs we ever made. (They're quieter going all ahead full than an LA boat shut down at the pier.) The Seawolf class was canceled after three boats due to the price tag and the peace dividend. A newer, cheaper class of attack sub not designed during the cold war was ordered. The Virginia class. They are slower and less capable then the Seawolf class. But at least they were cheaper. Oh wait. I forgot. Turned out that after the program was complete, the cost climbed to $2.2 billion each.

So the parallel: Los Angeles = F-15, Seawolf = F-22, and Virginia = F-35.

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.