Wednesday, July 16, 2014

F-35 News. What everyone is missing...


What people are missing.

SecDef Hagel is finally doing the hard thing.  I'm guessing but from my chair it looks like for the first time in his tenure he's gone against the wishes of Lockheed Martin, the USAF Chief of Staff and the Marine Corps Commandant as well as the Joint Program Office.

This leads to a lessons learned.

This program isn't as "too big to fail" as everyone believes.  That idea gets shit canned when the importance of the F-35's appearance at this airshow coupled with the hit it would take publicity wise is considered.

The Brits needed this puppy to show up, the Commandant of the Marine Corps needed this puppy to fly to Europe, Lockheed Martin desperately hoped that this would be the sales commercial to help them dominate the market and Hagel basically said fuck you.

What will happen now.

We can expect many to take the Singaporean way of doing things.  Call it a wait and see approach.  The Singaporeans won't buy a half baked airplane and will only seriously consider it once its been developed as a weapon of war...not as a test bed.

Sequestration...the elephant in the room.

Next year will be interesting.  The services have nothing else to cut and the US Navy in particular is having to forestall other more important projects just to keep the myth that they're interested in the F-35C going.  The need to replace the Ballistic Subs is the biggest issue affecting the Navy's ongoing participation in this program.  If sequestration continues then the pressure for them to drop out of the F-35 program will be too much to ignore any longer.  There is nothing else to cut.  The USMC has already eviscerated its Infantry Battalions, the USAF has already savaged its aircraft inventory.

The death spiral is here.

The plane has destroyed the defense budget, ruined many airforces and has left the US military in a terrible place.

I'll go on and say I told you so now.  You can thank me later.

9 comments :

  1. There was clearly an internal struggle within the DoD about releasing this aircraft to flight status. I am absolutely certain that NAVAIRs VADM Dunaway put his foot down and insisted that this aircraft should not be returned to normal service (making any long distance flights) until the root cause of the F135 failure is well understood. He was undoubtably under severe pressure from HQ USMC, OSD, the program office and LM/Pratt - the F-35 IMT (Integrated Marketing Team) - but he stood his ground. He may have even threatened to resign. Ultimately, reason rather than hype prevailed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. General Bogdan, is a recent interview, said that his biggest program challenge is affordability, "my #1 priority," both cost of manufacture and life-cycle cost. He went on to say (inexact quotes): Eighty percent of manufacturing cost reductions come from economy of scale. It's a matter of getting up to the ramp-rate, that partners buy the planes they've committed to. What we need for the next five to eight years is a steady increase to get the production rate up to the full rate. Marilyn Hewson (LM): --Much of the cost reduction we'll see over the next few years will be as a result of ramping up F-35 production.

    So while they should be focusing on F-35 development, which is the acquisition phase that the program is now in, with its many problems, just read the test reports, they are focusing on the increased manufacture of faulty prototypes. These increases would be above the meager amounts funded by Congress. The increases must come from foreign countries.

    They are now making a big hoorah about “Blueprint for Affordability,” which sees Lockheed, BAE and Northrop Grumman all chipping in $170 million over two years to find new way to drive down costs. Bogdan: That pot of money will go toward identifying and changing how certain parts of the plane, such as drilling machines or material, are produced for the plane. When those changes are made, it should lead to savings that can be plowed back into the price negotiations for production lots, providing cash back[sic] for taxpayers.

    That's $85 million per year for two years. We're supposed to be impressed?
    --$85 million is about one and a half percent of the Pentagon's F-35 procurement budget next fiscal year.
    --$85 million is about half of the F-35A unit procurement cost next fiscal year, about a third of the F-35B unit procurement cost, and about a quarter of the F-35C unit procurement cost in FY 2015.
    --$85 million would buy about four A-10s.
    --$85 million does however exceed Lockheed's Key Executive Compensation by about $27 million, according to Morningstar.

    Does this crazy "ramp-up" idea have legs?
    Can foreign "partners" be pressured to pay $200m each for planes that may catch fire on takeoff?
    They have probably just struck out with the UK, the only "tier one" F-35 partner.
    Let's see how other countries respond to Pentagon pressure.
    LRIP-8 has been in negotiations since last year, which runs counter to Bogdan's claim that his tenure has turned everything around and halted long contract negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should say that the F-35 no-show at Farnborough affected not only UK but other potential foreign buyers as well. It was big, in this respect. We also don't yet know what the fallout will be on the engine event, with a possible redesign and retrofit, along with some possible domestic political pressure.

      LM has subcontractors in 45 states, but only major ones in Texas and California. So politicians in other state may be heard from, like Congressman Moran from Virginia, in a letter to DOD:
      “This most recent episode is only the latest in a series of highly disturbing developments, one that poses a grave risk to the personnel operating the aircraft and that should raise serious concerns about the viability of the program. I ask that you provide information to my office on the decision to ground the entire fleet in light of recent statements from the department that this may be an isolated incident.”

      Delete
  3. And in other news: The figure refers to the estimated unit production cost of the Long-Range Strike Bomber, or LRS-B, and doesn’t include research and development expenses, which are likely to be significant. Fanning declined to specify what the latter might be, only that they wouldn’t “double” the overall cost of the plane.

    The new bomber is one of the Air Force’s top three acquisition programs, along with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the KC-46 refueling tanker. The service requested $700 million for “strategic bombers” in fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1, a $100 million increase from this year, according to Pentagon budget documents.

    The Air Force may buy between 80 and 100 of the aircraft, which are designed to succeed the B-2 Spirit made by Northrop Grumman Corp. Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor, has teamed up with Boeing Co., the world’s largest aerospace company, to challenge Northrop for the work.

    http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/12/air-force-keeps-bomber-price-tag-at-550-million/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love it when you play the "The death spiral is here." one Sol'. Never ceases to crack me up! What a hoot!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Too big to fail, probably not.

    But whats Plan B?
    Or more specifically, whats Plan B that works for everyone?

    The US saying, "We're just going to build more Hornets, Falcons, Eagles and Raptors, you can buy the first three" is likely to be politically disastrous

    Changing that to all four and we'll give you the deal of a life time might placate some, but there are half a dozen US allies who have rebuilt their fleets on the outright or implicit promise that the US will be providing aircraft to operate off them. If the B doesnt appear, the UK can easily(ish) go back to CATOBAR and Hornets, but Spain cant, nor can Japan, or South Korea. Its unlikely catapults can be added to those without rebuilding the ships, and would they want or be able to handle the hassle of catapult operations.

    If the F35 is cancelled, badly, who will attempt another joint development? Who will buy anything that doesnt already exist on the shelf?

    Make no mistake, cancelling the F35 will do more damage to the armed forces of a string of allies than a real shooting war would
    The last time this happened, the UK ended up with Polaris, because it was give us that, or watch the UK join France in isolation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i don't care. joint programs are poison anyway. name one that was done well. i can't think of one. the Typhoon was a disaster and cost hog, the JSF is...well the JSF, the only programs that work is to take a product and mold it to the needs of your armed forces...or develop it yourself if you have the industry.

      this thing is poison and who cares if the Brits become isolationist! i've looked at the way you're building your forces and you just can't do much without support ffrom others. i don't even think you could do a Falklands today.

      we'd do better depending on our own national guard if push comes to shove.

      Delete
    2. How do you suppose the US can close the GIUK gap if both France and the UK are disinterested in helping? Or actively sabotage the effort?

      How does the pacific pivot look if both Japan and Korea stop co-operating with the US? Or actively cooperate with China.

      Jut how many enemies do you think the US can survive?

      The US was sufficiently worried about the UK walking away that it completely reversed policy on nuclear deterrent. Thats not my opinion, thats fact.

      The F35 can be easily cancelled, but the fallout will not be easily dealt with

      Delete
    3. GUIK gap? thats cold war thinking. we don't need to worry about that. if Europe can't defend itself then fuck'em.

      Japan and S. Korea? they need us, we don't need them. China isn't coming after us they're coming after our friends. if the Japanese and S. Koreans get all big and bad then fuck them too.

      how many enemies can we survive? any that decide to come after us. but they better come in a pack because one on one we can kick their ass. quite honestly in total war we could probably destroy NATO if they decided to unite against us.

      as far as the fallout from the cancellation of the F-35? so! i'm tired of our domestic policy and needs being dictated by the needs of others. we don't need to sink any more money into that abomination. our allies will adjust or they can be pissed. either way i don't care.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.