Thanks for pointing me to this article Doug!
Every part of the DoD budget is facing scrutiny and is under pressure except for the F-35.
That makes no sense. Squadrons are being cut, aircraft carriers are in danger and troops are being forced out, yet the number of F-35 required remains the same.
How can that be? Well Hasik put pen to paper with a couple of his buddies and he came out with a real number on how many are required (assuming that they can get this thing to work at all...)
Be warned though. Its eye opening and shows again how out of balance the budget is, how little planning is actually going into it and how its based on wishful thinking and not the needs of the nation.
With the current civilian and military leadership, we're properly screwed. We definitely need better.
Note: Yes it is an old article but since we haven't seen any adjustments to procurement planning its extremely relevant today.
Every part of the DoD budget is facing scrutiny and is under pressure except for the F-35.
That makes no sense. Squadrons are being cut, aircraft carriers are in danger and troops are being forced out, yet the number of F-35 required remains the same.
How can that be? Well Hasik put pen to paper with a couple of his buddies and he came out with a real number on how many are required (assuming that they can get this thing to work at all...)
Read the entire article here.
I am, of course, greatly speculating, but such an end strength would likely call for an American purchase plan for only about 750 F-35s. I might note that this figure is much lower than even the Simpson-Bowles Commission or the Domenici-Rivlin Task Force recommended. That's because those folks took the US Air Force's "required" number as received wisdom, and just argued for buying F-16s instead. As I noted above, I had something more analytical in mind. My estimate also has much to do with how these aircraft might be apportioned amongst the services. How exactly that would work is hard to say, but if the Marine Corps needed 200 for ten or fewer helicopter carriers, and the Navy needed 600 for fewer than ten super-carriers, then the USAF might round out the total with the remaining 700. Here I am assuming that the Navy and the Air Force would retain their favored planes of the 1990s, the F-18E/F/G and the F-22, respectively. Remember that the F-35s are meant to replace F-16s, F-18s, A-10s, and some of the F-15s. The Navy will eventually buy at least 600 Super Hornets and Growlers, and the Air Force will keep at least 150 Raptors flying—if that service eventually figures out how to keep the planes from choking their pilots. That would lead to requirements for about 200 F-35Bs, 550 F-35A, and perhaps no F-35Cs at all. That last one is, after all, the airplane meant only the US Navy, but that the US Navy seems not much to want.
Be warned though. Its eye opening and shows again how out of balance the budget is, how little planning is actually going into it and how its based on wishful thinking and not the needs of the nation.
With the current civilian and military leadership, we're properly screwed. We definitely need better.
Note: Yes it is an old article but since we haven't seen any adjustments to procurement planning its extremely relevant today.
If you need to cut something, then you do in according to priority.
ReplyDelete1st, Low hanging fruit (no longer needed, waste, etc)
2nd, Consolidate programs that are similar in nature (redundant capabilities, etc)
3rd, Programs that you are getting rid of anyways, just earlier than planned
4th, Programs that you planned on keeping but can replace with something else
5th, Programs that you planned to keep and would be difficult to replace with something else.
6th, Programs that you need and cannot replace
The F-35 is in the 5th group while most of the programs being cut fall into they first 4. Once you finish working on the first 4, then you can look at the F-35.
Hasik's point is that system retention ought to be based upon actual requirements.
DeleteHasik:
Just why does the US Air Force think that it needs 1,763 F-35As? ... it should be grounded in estimates of what both remotely plausible opponents and expected allies might bring to battle, now and in the future. .. That would lead to requirements for about 200 F-35Bs, 550 F-35A, and perhaps no F-35Cs at all.
And... the other category: Failed programs including where the vendor has a consistent program record of not delivering on the promise.
ReplyDeleteJames Hasik has come up with some other gems in his past writings. Here's a few:
ReplyDeleteSo, whether as an ambition or a red-teaming exercise, just how would one go about trying to kill the JSF? There is a host of arguments to make to every government involved today, and there are two fronts on which to press:
Fracture international expectation
Skip that generation of weapons
Why the F-35 is looking a lot like the F-22 these days -- The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was doubtfully affordable before the bottom fell out of the United States' finances.
In the past few months, we’v been hearing more of two arguments that the USAF has been making for the F-35A, and specifically against the A-10C:
--All current combat aircraft must be multi-role.
--All future combat aircraft must be stealthy.
I don’t really buy into that idea, and the other day on Facebook, I made fun of the USAF’s position by asking whether the B-2A was a multi-role aircraft. At least one B-2 pilot found that humorous.
One thing I found interesting was Hasik's assertion that in past programs learning/cost curves leveled out after production reached 200. The F-35 is only 100 away now, I wonder what this means for cost projections and the 65/75/85/95 million dollar fighter.
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen most countries have reduced their proposed buy's anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 due to concerns with original purchase cost, O+M costs and the countries financial situation. It is hard to believe that the US would be immune to these pressures.
How many proposed weapon systems have ever been purchased in their intended numbers?
Regarding poor sales, as well as price, also the fact that there have been five negative reports on the JSF in the past twelve months regarding substandard performance, reliability and management. That's why the plane isn't officially in production, and won't be for five years at least. It's still deep in development and any planes bought now will be substandard and require retrofit, or worse (scrapping). Who wants to purchase something like that?
DeleteDon't buy a pig in a poke (bag). Let the cat out of the bag!
Yet another Lockheed failure.
ReplyDeleteUS Olympic Skating team is dumping Lockheed's Mach 39 racing suit and is reverting back to old suits, after having failed to win single medal.
Lockheed's Mach 39 doesn't work and appears to actually slow down skaters with friction building.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/02/14/5570028/lockheed-engineers-worked-on-racing.html
Didi you not even bother to READ the article?
DeleteIt was designed by UNDER ARMOR, with HELP from "a few" Lockheed engineers.
Your accusations are disingenuous and misinformed.