F-35 to be delayed again, more cost hikes.
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
What was the most talked about opinion issue, most published, from 2002-2006 in relation to RAAF strike fighters? It certainly wasn’t the clownish idea of turning F-111s into super-cruising stealth fighters. It was the “gap fill” fighter.
The F-111/Hornet straight to F-35 solution adopted by the Howard Government was well known and talked about as being high risk because it relied on the best case scenario for F-35 entry into service and a best case scenario for air worthiness of the F-111 and Hornet. While the Hornet has lived up to these wishes the F-111 hasn’t. If anything F-111 air worthiness in the past 4-6 years has been significantly exaggerated. When the US reprogrammed the F-35 schedule in 2006 there was no choice but to acquire the gap fill aircraft, rebadged “bridging capability”.
As to the cost of Super Hornet and F-35 you seem to think there was an alternative? Half of the Super Hornet cost was actually a boost to RAAF workforce and operating hours so not quite related to recapitalisation. If the RAAF had brought a new fighter from 2002 for immediate delivery they would then have to deal with its block obsolescence from the 2020 period. All you achieve is pushing back the funding and replacing the upgraded F/A-18A/B with something only about 1.5 times more combat capable (Block I Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale) compared to 3 times (Block II Super Hornet) and 5 times (F-35). If they had brought a batch of gap fill aircraft then the net cost would be little different to the current case.
Blind support? What do you think all these paragraphs explaining things are? Not blind support… If you refuse to accept these arguments then who is being blind? You’re certainly not offering any kind of rational alterative.
No doubt there are lots of urges you should resist. Since your point of view on F-35 relies almost exclusively on ignorance staying clear from any means of informing yourself is no doubt your best solution.
t68
Well-Known Member
This is the unfortunate result of Defence aquisitions and public money ! every step in the process is open to scrutiny, good and bad. If people really had half an idea about how increadibly complex any type of Defence program was, let alone something along the lines of the JSF things would be a bit smoother, but unfortunately we have to rely on the press to impart their expert wisdom (The advantage of being in school all your life and not really having any life experience) The problem is they do not understand that any civillian industry has just as many problems, only difference is the setbacks are not in the public domain.
If say a car company was subject to the same scrutiny through the R&D process and the engineering faults, major breakdowns, electrical faults, even the delays these guys would have for something as simple as the programs that run the fuel management systems and the electronic stability control, let alone the lines of code required for the JSF, they would seriously never buy a car again !! If only Defence could do the same thing behind closed doors and make it all look good with some clever ads and glossy brochures
Every area of life has these problems, only thing is if its in the private sector, you don't hear about it, but probably pay more for it than you ever will for any given Defence purchase
If say a car company was subject to the same scrutiny through the R&D process and the engineering faults, major breakdowns, electrical faults, even the delays these guys would have for something as simple as the programs that run the fuel management systems and the electronic stability control, let alone the lines of code required for the JSF, they would seriously never buy a car again !! If only Defence could do the same thing behind closed doors and make it all look good with some clever ads and glossy brochures
Every area of life has these problems, only thing is if its in the private sector, you don't hear about it, but probably pay more for it than you ever will for any given Defence purchase
Why do failures in the private sector excuse those in the public sector?
The delays and cost changes - if those quoted in the article are real - are not something I find a big deal in itself. It's just the way the industry rolls when it comes to claiming bullsh*t time lines and costings to start with that bothers me. I believe it is also highlighted by an earlier post with someone pointing out that the Aus government had already factored in significant delays and some cost blowouts.
If the majority of complex military projects have had such delays then why haven't they learnt and hence adjusted their projections? Is it to help sell it to governments, to help governments sell it to the public, or something else? Normally when you're in an industry for a long time and have to do projections you quickly learn how much "buffer" to pile onto both costing and timelines. Does anyone for a moment actually believe that LM didn't expect this sort of thing to occur?
The delays and cost changes - if those quoted in the article are real - are not something I find a big deal in itself. It's just the way the industry rolls when it comes to claiming bullsh*t time lines and costings to start with that bothers me. I believe it is also highlighted by an earlier post with someone pointing out that the Aus government had already factored in significant delays and some cost blowouts.
If the majority of complex military projects have had such delays then why haven't they learnt and hence adjusted their projections? Is it to help sell it to governments, to help governments sell it to the public, or something else? Normally when you're in an industry for a long time and have to do projections you quickly learn how much "buffer" to pile onto both costing and timelines. Does anyone for a moment actually believe that LM didn't expect this sort of thing to occur?
It doesn't excuse them, the private sector is not under the same scrutiny, in my overly simplified example everyone buys a car without a clue as to the problems that they had in development, delays in release date, let alone being released with known problems (bring in the bean counters) and all the way through this process you pay for it in the end price, and purchase it without a single clue as to its design and engineering history, you don't question how the paint was applied to the skin, you don't analize the balance of the car or how the welds were done
Projects the size of the F35 are going to have problems, delays, its fair share of high quality reporting and of course your more than fair share of "marketing" from LM.
Its pretty hard to learn when you are essentially creating brand new cutting edge technology, what these guy's have learned is to take the inevitable hits though
I compare it more with large scale one-off engineering projects. The RAAF could have gone the way of an off-the-shelf solution like the Super Hornet for a fixed price, but instead chose to invest in an engineering project.
The thing is though that generally engineering projects for the most part, while still having delays and cost overruns, have gotten better at estimates. If you keep on estimating, throwing a 100% "buffer" on top, and continually complete the project 200% over, do you leave your estimate at an additional 100%? It seems to me that it's the way many military projects seem to be run.
Ultimately it would appear that for the most part the main stakeholders have effectively factored this in themselves, so in the end the outcome probably wont be so bad. But it suggests to me that it has become an accepted factor in purchasing and TBH it makes the industry seem like it hasn't really matured.
I'm sure things are far far more complicated than what I'd see, and does include stuff like the US govt funding changes and so on, but as an everyday person who is simply interested in the projects this is the impression I get.
The thing is though that generally engineering projects for the most part, while still having delays and cost overruns, have gotten better at estimates. If you keep on estimating, throwing a 100% "buffer" on top, and continually complete the project 200% over, do you leave your estimate at an additional 100%? It seems to me that it's the way many military projects seem to be run.
Ultimately it would appear that for the most part the main stakeholders have effectively factored this in themselves, so in the end the outcome probably wont be so bad. But it suggests to me that it has become an accepted factor in purchasing and TBH it makes the industry seem like it hasn't really matured.
I'm sure things are far far more complicated than what I'd see, and does include stuff like the US govt funding changes and so on, but as an everyday person who is simply interested in the projects this is the impression I get.
Huh? both the private sector and public sector build in contingency to allow for exchange rate and CPI changes over the life of the project
NONE of this is out of the ordinary at all. having worked all sides of the project box I'm wondering what you're aiming at as none of this unique - in fact its needed.
You'd have to be a moron not to do it.
The point about the govt themselves is simply a side comment I guess. My main point is regarding the companies like LM that have an amazing ability to under estimate things so consistently and yet not adjust their methods. I'm coming from the point of view of when I've worked on projects (yes, many many times smaller), do a legit estimate of the work required, and then throw a 200% buffer on top. If I kept going over that (time and/or money) then I'd adjust the buffer upwards, not just shrug my shoulders and go "oh my customers are used to it, no drama".
but thats a US Govt issue as they're the ones who set up the model for JSF. They already acknowledge that the Australian modelling is better and far more realistic, and they have been quite solidly engaged with Australia as they move forward and look at new ways to fix their procurement models.
The primes will skin the cat as far as they can if you let them. JSF is an example of this. Unfortunately what you end up with is the peanut gallery usually abusing the plane for the failings of management process when its the province of the Govt to fix it up.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #51
Deficit Panel eyes F-35, MV-22 cuts.
Lockheed F-35 fighter in US deficit panel's sights | Reuters
Now it looks like they want to cancel outright the Marine Corps F-35B and cut the planned purchase of the F-35A and F-35C in half and substitute them with new F-16s and more F/A-18 Super Hornets.
And they want to cancel the MV-22 Osprey.
By cutting 15% of the Pentagons weapons procurement budget.
Lockheed F-35 fighter in US deficit panel's sights | Reuters
Now it looks like they want to cancel outright the Marine Corps F-35B and cut the planned purchase of the F-35A and F-35C in half and substitute them with new F-16s and more F/A-18 Super Hornets.
And they want to cancel the MV-22 Osprey.
By cutting 15% of the Pentagons weapons procurement budget.
The deficit review commission is proposing spending cuts of $ 4,000 billion over the next ten years. These include cuts to defence but this is rather small fry compared to the other cuts. Defence procurement cuts proposed are around $20 billion per annum (by 2015) compared to $400 billion per annum (averaged) across US expenditure. That’s only 5% of overall cuts. Because of the political nature of the US Congress I doubt you will see these proposed cuts passed onto defence. Especially since the burden seems directed at the USMC: F-35B, MV-22, EFV and T-Craft. No one’s being able to lay a glove on the USMC in Congress for funding cuts for the past 60 years and I can’t see that changing now.
The USMC budget forms part of the much larger Navy budget, if the Navy's under intense pressure to cut cost they would rather sacrifice USMC assets than their own. So if the choice is between F35B & C, the Navy will fight for the latter over the former.
Often the USMC ends up with poorer equipment scales than the Army who don't have to fight for funds from a domineering parent. GWI the USMC was still using 105mm armed M60A1, whilst the Army had migrated to Abrams M1A1's.
The only programme which keeps appearing on the radar screen for potential downsizing/ cancellation is EVF, Gates has raised the issue on a number of occasions and on the surface appears no great fan of the project.
Pressure on budgets will increase, if the right returns to power and some of isolationist Tea Party have their way you could see a number of prestigious programs downsized.
Often the USMC ends up with poorer equipment scales than the Army who don't have to fight for funds from a domineering parent. GWI the USMC was still using 105mm armed M60A1, whilst the Army had migrated to Abrams M1A1's.
The only programme which keeps appearing on the radar screen for potential downsizing/ cancellation is EVF, Gates has raised the issue on a number of occasions and on the surface appears no great fan of the project.
Pressure on budgets will increase, if the right returns to power and some of isolationist Tea Party have their way you could see a number of prestigious programs downsized.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #54
I hope your right, IMO they need the F35 and MV-22 but for the EFV I'm still undecided.
But these proposed cuts are a bad idea and I hope they don't pass these cuts.
LOL. No, no and no. The US Congress decides where the money goes not the US Navy. If this had been the case then USMC would have shrivelled up to one or two security battalions by now.
Well the US has survived for almost centuries with deficit spending but current levels are a bit extreme. I doubt you'll see significant cuts (15% as proposed by the commission) in defence with the current Congress but big cuts in other areas. Maybe defence will have to eat a 5% cut and it certainly won't be felt in brunt by USMC.
That may be so, but they are influenced by lobbyists on Capital Hill. A US associate of mine was posted from Virginia Beach to Capital Hill as a lobbyist running around the corridors of power fighting for funds for his niche arm. The USMC and Navy have their own lobby teams fighting for the same slice of the pie. And one thing you can't deny is the Navy packs a much bigger political punch.
The programme still under pressure appears to be the EFV. October 2010 Quote:
But a bigger menace to EFV is a Pentagon budget crunch. Regardless of how it performs in the upcoming tests, the estimated $13 billion program has come under greater scrutiny not only because of its price tag but also because senior Pentagon officials have questioned the relevance of its mission – to deliver marines from a ship to a hostile beach. Amphibious landings, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, are passé and, if necessary, could be carried out with other, less expensive vehicles. Critics have called out the EFV for lacking a clear strategic rationale given that marines have not conducted a contested amphibious landing since the Korean War's Inchon invasion in 1950.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=220
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #58
I agree I just can't see Congress passing a 15% cut such as cutting the Air Force purchase of the F-35 to 800 aircraft, let alone canceling the F-35B leaving the USMC with no AV-8 replacement. Plus isn't the MV-22 doing well? I thought it already entered service a few years back don't see a need to cut the MV-22 program this far in. As for the EFV I don't really know if they should cancel that or not, if they do they need to come up with a replacement plan like use more helicopters for ship to shore and LCACs.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
There is a precedent. In 90s decade, defence budget actually got cut and not restored even when congress turned republican until Bush took over. 1990 = ~$290b. 2000 = ~$281b. 2010 = $692b.
The reference to gutting the military is not exactly unfounded wrt Clinton but there was an easy way out in the 90s ie reducing personnel numbers. It is a lot leaner today so I think procurement will likely bear the brunt of cuts.
R&D is one sector that is also at risk with the budget having doubled to ~$80b since 2000.
The military procurement budget did go down from ~$80b in the initial years of the 90s to $50b in the latter half of the 90s. Its hitting $147b for 2010 and likely going up more with all the projects coming onboard. Not surprising that the Navy chose to seal the deal with the 20x LCS rather than 10x previously.
The F-22 program provides an alarming (at least to LM) historical example on how the F-35 program may end up.
But if the F-35B gets canned, there's already 31 LRIP -B versions ordered, funded that won't be converted to other versions.
There is a precedent. In 90s decade, defence budget actually got cut and not restored even when congress turned republican until Bush took over. 1990 = ~$290b. 2000 = ~$281b. 2010 = $692b.
The reference to gutting the military is not exactly unfounded wrt Clinton but there was an easy way out in the 90s ie reducing personnel numbers. It is a lot leaner today so I think procurement will likely bear the brunt of cuts.
R&D is one sector that is also at risk with the budget having doubled to ~$80b since 2000.
The military procurement budget did go down from ~$80b in the initial years of the 90s to $50b in the latter half of the 90s. Its hitting $147b for 2010 and likely going up more with all the projects coming onboard. Not surprising that the Navy chose to seal the deal with the 20x LCS rather than 10x previously.
The F-22 program provides an alarming (at least to LM) historical example on how the F-35 program may end up.
But if the F-35B gets canned, there's already 31 LRIP -B versions ordered, funded that won't be converted to other versions.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #60
They are not going to cut the military procurement budget like they did in the 90s, there is not a chance in hell of that happening. And the USMC is not going to face the burden of the cuts ether, or any one branch for that matter.
As for the F35 ending up like the F-22, thats exactly what Robert Gates is trying to avoid so that does not happen.