|
I found this on another discussion forum. I quess it was only a matter of time before the shotcomings of this program started coming to light.
There was some chat about the latest state of the F-35 program. Here's a recent article that's pretty accurate:
"Budget planning document calls for JSF production cuts and shifts in funding to R & D"
A cut of 70 aircraft from the early purchases of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and a transfer of $5.1 billion to research and development from production have been approved by a top Pentagon civilian as part of planning for the Fiscal 2005 defense budget.
Official Defense Dept. acknowledgment of the increase in projected JSF program cost has been long anticipated, say military and aerospace industry specialists. Participants in the program expect the axed aircraft to be reinserted elsewhere in the program, thereby maintaining the projected total at 2,443 aircraft. But critics suggest that later production of the JSF could be challenged by new, cheaper unmanned combat aircraft designs.
"This program has been going along for 10 years under the original budget," said a senior official of one of the major companies involved in the project. "We knew it was coming and that the program has money problems. It was getting close to final design review in 2004 and first flight [of the production design] in 2005, so they're now trying to deal with the normal program cost growth all at once."
Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim approved a program budget document (PBD) that proposes shifting the funding and cutting acquisition of the aircraft (through Fiscal 2009) to 90 from 160 aircraft. The research and development program would be increased to $40.5 million from $35.1 billion and stretched by a year if the plan is approved. These changes reflect problems with getting the multi-national strike aircraft (slated to replace several other tactical aircraft) into a production configuration.
"The current issue is a deterioration in the weight margin that we need to resolve," said Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's principal deputy undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics. "The translation into a producible design is taking longer and is more complex than we had originally anticipated. The PBD reflects our current best budgetary estimate of requirements to make sure the program remains executable."
Companies like Northrop Grumman and Boeing, building prototypes for the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System (J-UCAS) competition, view the slowdown with some relish since unmanned strike aircraft programs will provide competition for JSF during the manned aircraft's later production lots. However, the projected delays irritate many service and industry planners because JSF is needed to offer competition in foreign markets to Europe's new Typhoon and Rafale fighters.
AIR FORCE OFFICIALS offered additional reasons for delays and cost increases. Problems with the F/A-22 program created a brain drain within Lockheed Martin that pulled personnel out of the JSF program and slowed it, suggested one senior Air Force officer.
A second Air Force official attributed the projected increase in the JSF program to another four issues. Development of an alternative engine is under-funded by around $2 billion. The design is being refined to deal with weight growth and configuration changes. Initial program cost estimates were overoptimistic. Also, hiring an additional 1,600 engineers for the Fort Worth program has proven difficult.
"Development cost of $40 billion is about right and should have been the number all along," the second official said. "[The adjustments] will not change the production requirement for JSF. Those cut from early production will be added on at the end. It's not that significant. Lockheed Martin will continue to get about $4.5 billion per year, which is about what they've expected all along. The whole thing is a reality reassessment."
Lockheed Martin officials close to the program are cautiously optimistic that the new budget estimates will have little real impact. They, too, listed several issues that have produced increased costs. The company had to conduct a configuration study for new international customers that also triggered additional development costs to meet the requirements of seven countries that joined the program. The Air Force required a very expensive antitamper capability for classified software and hardware to ensure they would be destroyed in the event of capture by an enemy. Inflation adjustments by OMB cost the program $1 billion. The Pentagon also insisted that the company hold additional funding in reserve for potential problems with the program.
Despite the proposed budget changes, Lockheed Martin officials say so far there is no change in the April critical design review date and the possibility of a only slight delay in the first flight now scheduled for October 2005.
The company is examining a change that it claims would cut risk. Instead of developing the designs in the order of the Air Force conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) first, Marine Corps/ Royal Navy short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) second and Navy carrier version (CV) last, company officials say they believe a shift to an order of CTOL, CV and STOVL (the most weight-sensitive design) would better serve the program through a more progressive development curve.
The order can be shifted without changing the services' initial operating capabilities currently slated for the Marine Corps in 2010, Air Force in 2011 and Navy in 2012. Because it could cut risk and cost, "it's a good way to do business," a company official said. "Shifting the schedule of development won't mean a change in initial operating capability (IOC) because many of the test flights can simply be moved from one aircraft [version] to another."
Other aerospace officials say juggling priorities could also help camouflage cost growth.
"Pushing up priority of development for the Marine Corps' short takeoff and vertical landing version provides an opportunity to justify rising cost by saying the program has to deal with the most complicated design earlier," an industry official said."
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
