F-35 to be delayed again, more cost hikes.

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Pentagon experts conducting an in-depth review of Lockheed Martin's F-35 joint strike fighter are predicting further cost increases and delays getting the airplanes tested and into service.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to be briefed today on the latest cost and schedule assessments, said two government officials, who requested anonymity because details aren't public. Delays in writing and testing millions of lines of intricate software code and continuing problems and delays with testing the especially complex Marines version of the aircraft are driving costs higher.
The latest projections are based on a preliminary analysis of test and production data from a comprehensive "technical baseline review" of the F-35, the officials said. The review of the $382 billion program is to be presented Nov. 22 to the Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board.
The $50 billion development cost estimate for the F-35 could rise as much as $5 billion more, and Pentagon analysts now estimate that the aircraft may be as much as 11/2 times more expensive to maintain than the warplanes it will replace, the officials said. The F-35 has been billed as being less costly to maintain and operate than existing planes.
Air Force and Navy versions of the plane could be delayed another year and the Marines version by two to three years, the officials said.
The potential delays and increases would be on top of those the Pentagon acknowledged earlier this year. Those include a 13-month extension of the current development phase to November 2015, shifting of $2.8 billion in production funds for continued development and testing, and delaying the purchase of 122 jets to beyond 2015.
Further delays and higher costs will complicate Pentagon efforts to write its 2012 budget proposal, which has to be sent to the White House in coming weeks.
Lockheed is developing the F-35 in Fort Worth, where about 7,000 people work on the program. In a statement, Lockheed said it has been working closely with the Pentagon on the latest review.
"It would be premature for Lockheed Martin to discuss the results of the [review] until the findings ... have been released," the statement said.
Today's briefing of Gates will draw on a review prepared by the F-35 program manager, Vice Adm. David Venlet, who was appointed last spring to get a firm handle on costs and problems. Venlet won't be present for the briefing, the officials said. The review is expected to disclose broad ranges of potential expense growth.
Gates "is engaging in a broader tactical aircraft discussion of which the joint strike fighter is obviously an important piece," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mail.
"How many more reviews will Gates have to hear before he acknowledges the F-35 is an unaffordable failure?" said Winslow Wheeler, a program critic who is director of the Straus Military Reform Project. "The F-35 is rapidly becoming a millstone around his neck."
Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute defense analyst and consultant to contractors, said the added delays are due in part to technical problems with the aircraft and software that aren't critical but are time-consuming and costly to fix.
"The problem is, the business case for the F-35 is so tightly wound that there's no room for error," Thompson said.
Much of the forecast delay and increased costs, Thompson said, is a result of continuing disagreements among the armed services, the Pentagon's testing office and Lockheed over how much flight testing is required.
Congress hasn't completed work on the fiscal 2011 defense budget, in which the Pentagon requested 43 aircraft. The Senate Appropriations Committee cut $1.5 billion and 10 aircraft from the budget request, citing program delays.


Read more: More cost increases, delays predicted for F-35 | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Busin...
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Raaf f35

What impact do you guy's potentially see for the RAAF if there is a further delay in the program ? If it extends too far will we have a very real and serious capability gap in our air defence ? Could further delay's keep Australia a (Super) Hornet country ?

Mods, suggest this be merged with the current F35 thread :)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What impact do you guy's potentially see for the RAAF if there is a further delay in the program ? If it extends too far will we have a very real and serious capability gap in our air defence ? Could further delay's keep Australia a (Super) Hornet country ?

Mods, suggest this be merged with the current F35 thread :)
the main issue here is that both RAAF and Govt are not losing sleep over this.

every time one of these "sky is falling" press releases occurs it doesn't trigger any panic from the customers.

having dealt with JSF on the periphery, I'm not getting twitchy about another "woe is us" article.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
F-15, stop posting articles without including any original content. It's in the forum rules, other posters aren't allowed to get away with it, and it applies to you too.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
the main issue here is that both RAAF and Govt are not losing sleep over this.

every time one of these "sky is falling" press releases occurs it doesn't trigger any panic from the customers.

having dealt with JSF on the periphery, I'm not getting twitchy about another "woe is us" article.
I realise that GF, thats why I like to use a lot of if's in my questions, projects of this magnatude are going to have exactly what is happening to them, it is inevitable, I am just curious what would be the D Day deadline for us to take action, or could we potentially continue to fill the gap with further S Hornet's purchases if required ? As I understand it the Hornets don't really have too much time left
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I realise that GF, thats why I like to use a lot of if's in my questions, projects of this magnatude are going to have exactly what is happening to them, it is inevitable, I am just curious what would be the D Day deadline for us to take action, or could we potentially continue to fill the gap with further S Hornet's purchases if required ? As I understand it the Hornets don't really have too much time left
Personally I can't see any push to acquire or lease any more Shornets. Everyone seems quite comfortable with the timeframes - and the US has publicly acknowledged that they recognise that our costing and fielding requirements were done far more realistically.

The issue is the perceived capability gap and what is required to do that job. UAV's will certainly be better placed to take up some of those roles mid 20's.

2025 -2030 are the critical dates for end state capability - and the threat matrix issues in 2020+ will be the influence if there is change.

I have to say that personally I have little patience for the JSF hysteria, most of it borders on the irrational and personal motivation of the detractors. esp when you see some of their tactical modelling etc...

some of them are first class numptys.. :)
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Personally I can't see any push to acquire or lease any more Shornets. Everyone seems quite comfortable with the timeframes - and the US has publicly acknowledged that they recognise that our costing and fielding requirements were done far more realistically.

The issue is the perceived capability gap and what is required to do that job. UAV's will certainly be better placed to take up some of those roles mid 20's.

2025 -2030 are the critical dates for end state capability - and the threat matrix issues in 2020+ will be the influence if there is change.

I have to say that personally I have little patience for the JSF hysteria, most of it borders on the irrational and personal motivation of the detractors. esp when you see some of their tactical modelling etc...

some of them are first class numptys.. :)
No probs, thanks for the info, once again not thinking out my questions in the haste to post during work hours :D. I am lacking patience, but only to see them in the sky ! Have we moved any further down the track as far as UAV'S are concerned for the ADF as a whole, any insight into what we maybe looking at ?
How much longer do you think the Shornets will be in production ? We could always get some Eurofighters to fill the gap:p: Only joking :D
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Its another story from the Startlegram, its what we Texans call the paper, selling newspapers in the DFW area. Its a local journalist quoting Winston Wheeler and Loren Thompson. One is a known critic of the JSF. Where there any quotes from anyone directly involved with the JSF? None...

Just opinions serving their agenda. Its another excuse to use the Starlegram for wrapping fish and lining bird cages.... :lam:lam:lam

I prefer to read about aeronautical engineering from trusted sources such as Aviation Week and Space Technology.... By journalists who understand the subject about what they are writing...
 

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

Can the existing hornets (A/Bs) last that long? If I'm not wrong, they started coming in yr 1984 so that will make it 26 years on the airframe at the most with nominal expectation of at least a 30 year service life ie 2014.

Shouldn't be that difficult to extend serviceability for a few years so maybe a year's delay isn't a big thing. I don't think those hornets will be in service until 2030 though.

If there's a major delay eg 5 years or more, I would think a batch 2 buy would be likely.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Can the existing hornets (A/Bs) last that long? If I'm not wrong, they started coming in yr 1984 so that will make it 26 years on the airframe at the most with nominal expectation of at least a 30 year service life ie 2014.

Shouldn't be that difficult to extend serviceability for a few years so maybe a year's delay isn't a big thing. I don't think those hornets will be in service until 2030 though.

If there's a major delay eg 5 years or more, I would think a batch 2 buy would be likely.
The critics are acting as if every aircraft before the F-35 were developed without delays. We know this to be false as every developing aircraft have seen delays. The critics are acting as if every mole hill in the F-35 development is a colossal mountain. Did they expect a huge advancement in technology would go without a few problems to overcome? Granted the B version is having more difficulty, but the critics directly link through implication the Bs problems with the As and Cs.

They also don't understand the software problems as well. The JSF introduces a significant leap with open source software, which in the beginning may see delays for the short term, but for the long term offer significant ease for upgrades.

The critics are more worried about red herrings with the delays instead of seeing the significant technological improvements being achieved. Good things are worth waiting for... :cool::cool::cool:

I believe they are more interested in earning brownie points saying I told you so... Well, we knew all along there could and most likely would be delays. Frankly, I getting fed up with their chicken little attitudes...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can the existing hornets (A/Bs) last that long? If I'm not wrong, they started coming in yr 1984 so that will make it 26 years on the airframe at the most with nominal expectation of at least a 30 year service life ie 2014.

Shouldn't be that difficult to extend serviceability for a few years so maybe a year's delay isn't a big thing. I don't think those hornets will be in service until 2030 though.
who said that the classics will stay in service till 2030? Thats not what I said, apart from the fact that they've never been tagged to stay in service that long at any stage of the game

If there's a major delay eg 5 years or more, I would think a batch 2 buy would be likely.
why? they're already planned for beyond 5 years as it is. the centre barrel issues were not as severe as originally thought and the aircraft are roadworthy anyway? none are on short hours - and with the current govt wanting to save money you can expect that hours will cop a flogging as well as all the services start to work out how we save on sustainment costs.

5 years is not a major delay - never was. 8-10 years is when people would consider plan B.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Can the existing hornets (A/Bs) last that long? If I'm not wrong, they started coming in yr 1984 so that will make it 26 years on the airframe at the most with nominal expectation of at least a 30 year service life ie 2014.
The first 2 F/A-18A/B Hornets for the RAAF were delivered in late 1984. The last was delivered in 1988, so the calender life of the fleet varies quite considerably.

The calender years don't matter so much however. What matters is the fatigue life expired index (FLEI) which shows in a simplistic matter (though I'm sure the calculation of such is quite complex) the relative amount of remaining fatigue life in the airframe for it's expected service life. I remember that Abe Gubler wrote an article a couple of years ago that the fleet was all between 0.6 and 0.7 with 1.0 being the "life of type" of the aircraft.

Of course, the aircraft can be extended, but it becomes a matter of when it is no longer cost effective to continue maintaining the aircraft. Under our Hornet upgrade program, phase 3.1 a "blending and patching" type maintenance and life extension program was undertaken. This will continue through the life of the Hornet.

Shouldn't be that difficult to extend serviceability for a few years so maybe a year's delay isn't a big thing. I don't think those hornets will be in service until 2030 though.
No way. But extending them to 2020-22 or so, should significant delays in F-35 eventuate, shouldn't be a huge problem.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The USG to AusGov briefings re this are next week.

Not that the discussions or detailed outcomes will appear on the net...
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Well no A/B or C/D Hornet has fallen apart in mid air despite pushing the 1.0 FLEI (which is equal to a base level of 8,000 hours but takes into account more accurately actual structural stresses and mitigation). The key structural component limiting life is the centre barrel. Because of the Hornet’s design it was thought you couldn’t accurately measure the fatigue condition of the CB so they needed to be replaced at around 0.7-0.8 FLEI (from memory). They can be replaced and there is an active assembly line in Canada doing it with new build CBs from Northrop’s El Segundo.

DSTO did an analysis of centre barrel life and found a way they are confident monitors their condition and allows for extra life without replacement. Both CBR and the new DSTO method are underway for the RAAF. Also the Super Hornet is an excellent means of enhancing the life of A/B Hornets. Because they are backwards compatible for aircrew more flying can be done on the Fs allowing the A/Bs to take it easy preserving flying hours. Anyway there is no urgent need for A/B Hornet replacement now because of the Fs, CBR and the DSTO method until at least 2020. Systems wise the RAAF A/Bs are the best un-Super Hornets in the world and very nasty customers indeed.
 

Haavarla

Active Member
It state the F-35 in the article above.
Which F-35 is the cause for the delay, the F-35B again?
Bar the Software issue, are there any other problems like the engines?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
It state the F-35 in the article above.
Which F-35 is the cause for the delay, the F-35B again?
Bar the Software issue, are there any other problems like the engines?
Read this from Aviation Week....

Gates Briefed On JSF Delay | AVIATION WEEK

Maturing software. Bs inlet doors. Same as before, nothing new.

"Reports suggest that the U.S. Air Force/international F-35A and Navy F-35C variants will be delayed another 12 months and the Marines’ F-35B – still suspended from powered-lift flight testing due to a problem with an auxiliary inlet door – will be two to three years late. It is not clear whether that refers to the completion of developmental testing or to the initial operational capability date.

The need for more time to carry out flight testing and to mature software is the main reason for the delay. Although two USAF F-35A prototypes have been flying at a higher-than-expected rate at Edwards AFB, Calif., the F-35B program at NAS Patuxent River, Md., has fallen further behind schedule since last March, and the planned start of shipboard trials (in March 2011) will now be missed. Only six aircraft were delivered to customer flight test centers in Fiscal 2010 out of 12 planned in September 2009.

The direct cost is expected to be a $5 billion increase in research and development costs (currently budgeted at around $50 billion in then-year dollars)."

Of course there could be more delays. The Bs appear to have the most problems. Probably why the British chose to go with the Cs instead of the Bs...
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
What surprises me is that everybody seems to focus on the delay and the extra possibly 5 billion USD but do not comment on the following:

Gates also was advised in a Nov. 2 briefing that operations and support costs for the F-35 will be re-budgeted at 1.5 times the aircraft it replaces, more than twice the original goal and 50% more than more recent projections, according to reports.
(from the same aviationweek article).

Now this to me is a real issue. Although 5billion USD is a lot of money, on such a huge project it's after all not that significant. However the increase in operations and support cost of 50% and costs "1.5 times the aircraft it replaces" now that to me seems highly significant and deeply worrying.

Of course we don't know what the above really means, is it an average number across the A/B/C or is it for one of them, and if yes, which one, the cheapest or most expensive.

Or did I misread what Bill wrote? Seems strange that the above has not been commentd on extensively so I somehow expect I have mispinterpreted although I am not sure how?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Or did I misread what Bill wrote? Seems strange that the above has not been commentd on extensively so I somehow expect I have mispinterpreted although I am not sure how?
Bill likes to do what APA does and that is to take a simplistic look at some numbers and consider the program as a whole and divide costs by the number of aircraft and go, "see? That's what the aircraft costs." It overlooks the individual costs of the F-35A, B and C and is disingenuous. The F-35A is NOT going to cost as much to run as the F-35B or C, but as per usual they do NOT have costings for the aircraft, so they push their agenda by using simplistic, but negative nonetheless, means.

Now I am aware that cost reduction in relation to support costs compared to previous aircraft was always a central plank of the F-35 program, but it's a heavier and more capable aircraft, with a stonking big motor that has buckets of thrust AND it is a low observable aircraft AND that low signature has to be maintained for the life of the aircraft to keep it's capability levels as high as possible.

Now compared to the majority of aircraft it's replacing (F-16, F/A-18, A-10C) and the capabilities they provide, I can't see it as being any great surprise that it may cost some more to operate, than some aircraft. But so does ANY more capable aircraft. More thrust means more fuel burn. A heavier aircraft means more drag and more fuel burn. A hotter engine with more thrust means either a more expensive engine or a less durable engine and so on.

That 1.5x times figure is extremely rubbery though and it's typical of those who profess to use "hard data" that they use such a non-specific figure to try to justify their position. 1.5x what? An F-16? Which Block? An F/A-18? An AV-8B Harrier II? Do all these aircraft cost exactly the SAME to operate?

They play the "numbers" game every bit as much or more as L-M do, they just do it, with the open sourced data that they are actually allowed to see, however... 2 and 2 equals 5 when you add it together doesn't it?

Further more they jump to conclusions whenever the hint of bad news is released, almost as if they have an emotional NEED to be proven "right" about this, and yet remain distinctly absent in the discussion when good news or previously unknown information is released...

Strange, huh?

;)
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
AD

thanks for your reply, that does makes sense.

I guess you are right; and perhaps the "true costs" of operating the F-35 will be somewhere between what LM says and what Bill and others say.

I am afraid that the Norwegian politicians will get an unpleasant surprise , because the numbers they got presented back in 2008 on operating costs were very optimistic for the F-35 (at least 20-30 billon NOK cheaper than Gripen NG to operate over 30 years).

I believe LM back at that time insisted that the F-35A would be cheaper to operate than the F-16.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
AD

thanks for your reply, that does makes sense.

I guess you are right; and perhaps the "true costs" of operating the F-35 will be somewhere between what LM says and what Bill and others say.

I am afraid that the Norwegian politicians will get an unpleasant surprise , because the numbers they got presented back in 2008 on operating costs were very optimistic for the F-35 (at least 20-30 billon NOK cheaper than Gripen NG to operate over 30 years).

I believe LM back at that time insisted that the F-35A would be cheaper to operate than the F-16.
Maybe. Maybe not. I very much doubt the publicly released briefs we've all seen are the SAME one's the Norwegian Government has seen. For the reasons stated below, I very much doubt the F-35 will be significantly cheaper to operate overall than an F-16.

It's heavier and has a heap more thrust so it is going to burn more fuel for a start. How much? Who knows because the F135 is a more efficient engine than the F100 or F110...

These people that are decrying doom and gloom don't have such information as THE exact SFC for the F135 engine at the range of altitudes and flight profiles the F-35 will likely undertake. They DON'T know how much, in how much detail or even how often the aircraft servicings will be. They do NOT know the cost of support equipment, training platforms and so on.

I guess for the F135 (at static sea level) that it will burn 0.7llbs of fuel per pound of thrust per hour at maximum mil power (28,000lbs of thrust) which is a bit better than a late model F100 or F110 but how often will the aircraft fly on max mil thrust power? (Takeoff's, ingress/egress into target areas?) How often will it use reheat (engagements or disengagements and some heavy takeoff's only?)

Who the hell knows? Only the operators at this time.

Without this kind of detailed information everyone is absolutely guessing.

They still feel quite capable of beating their own chests and telling the world "how much" these things cost to run though...
 
Top