This from the esteemed Loren Thompson....
Author:
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Date:
Friday, November 5, 2010
Tags:
Bloomberg Business News, F-35
When
the Pentagon released its latest cost estimates for the tri-service F-35
joint strike fighter program, many outsiders were aghast at the
projected price-tag for the planes. Everyone knew it was the defense
department's biggest development program, but the per-plane costs were a
good deal higher than most people were expecting. Now Tony Capaccio of
Bloomberg Business News is reporting that acquisition costs could go
even higher due to development delays -- only a few months after
policymakers restructured the program, supposedly to put it on a more
predictable, executable path. So this program must be really fouled up,
right?
Wrong. The same Pentagon report that disclosed the high cost
projections also stated that all three variants of the plane were
meeting key performance requirements and doing well in tests. It also
said no major design or engineering concerns had been identified in any
of the variants. That is still the case today. Minor engineering
issues arise the same way they would in any other cutting-edge
technology project, and software is taking longer than expected to
generate and test, just as it seems to in every other new weapons
program. But the F-35 program is basically in good shape. So why is
there an endless drumbeat of bad news about the program's schedule and
cost?
The biggest reason, a reason few outsiders seem to grasp, is
bureaucratic politics in the Pentagon. You see, there are these
factions that benefit from generating cost estimates, conducting tests
and doing other things associated with new weapons programs, and said
factions tend to make the usual problems any development program
encounters either look worse or actually be worse. Take the cost
estimates. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has recently signed the
fourth consecutive production contract with the defense department in
which the actual cost of building the F-35 came in well below the cost
projected by Pentagon estimators. About 25 percent below, in the latest
contract. Yet cost estimators continue to apply pessimistic
assumptions to projecting future costs, based on historical data from
other, older fighter programs. So they come up with wildly wrong cost
estimates that the contractor beats every time. It has to beat them,
because nobody is going to buy a single-engine fighter for much more
than what the latest F-16 sells for today, so that's how Lockheed needs
to price the new plane.
Or take the possible development delays that reporter Capaccio of
Bloomberg revealed. Most of those delays, if they occur, won't be
caused by internal program problems. They will be caused by the desire
of the Pentagon's testing community to conduct a vast array of redundant
flight tests -- literally thousands of them. Why? Because that's what
testers do. So now there's an internal dispute between the testers and
budget planners about just how many tests are really needed, and if the
testers prevail the cost of the program could go up by billions of
dollars. It's ironic that acquisition functions funded by Congress to
enhance program performance have the perverse effect of inflating costs
and delaying fielding, but that's why the term "bureaucratic politics"
was invented. When you create an office in the government, it's natural
tendency is to grow in size and influence (look at EPA). It's up to
Congress to decide when these offices cease to add value, but in the
meantime let's not blame industry or the military services for all the
unpleasant surprises.
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Funny how those who should know about things like this failed to report them.
Funny how certain knowledge is always left out of this debate...
Remember the dust up over the F-35's range in comparison to legacy fighters???? Remember what was left out of that discussion by the critics of the F-35???
The fact that the F-35 will outrange the vaunted (and capable) F-22! One author even went so far as to suggest that the Harrier was superior to the F-35B in range!
All I ask from those that are critics is to be honest. Spin and sophistry (as one noted critic likes to put it) should not be a part of this discussion.
Loren Thompson has put a knife in the latest dustup....hopefully others will do the same in the future.