Tweet
F-35 in trouble
Linka
Boy, it s a good thing we ended production on a already developed airplane in favor of an aircraft that hasn't even go through devolpment hell yet, huh?
An internal Pentagon oversight board has reported that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind schedule, according to multiple congressional aides familiar with the findings.
Talk of the program’s problems comes amid intense debate over the future of another fighter plane, the F-22. Defenders of the F-22 argue that continued production is vital to national security.
The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation’s combat aircraft needs.
Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.
The Pentagon’s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.
That’s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion. The discrepancy between the Joint Estimate Team and the Joint Program Office was noted in a March report by the GAO, but it received little attention at the time.
“In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office’s projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimate Team found,” said one Senate aide who was briefed on the findings.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., who has often criticized the F-35 program and has called it the “Joint Strike Failure,” said his attempts to get internal Pentagon data on the program have often been rebuffed.
“They are wrapped so tight on that F‑35,” said Bond, who added that the Pentagon is so invested in the program that it is loath to release negative information, especially during a debate over Air Force funding.
“They bet too much on the F-35. It’s too big to fail,” Bond said. “It’s like Citigroup.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said there is no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, which is due next year, but he said more testing is needed to determine whether full production would be able to begin on schedule.
“The JET is not the gospel. It is but one view, albeit an important one, of our testing program,” Morrell said. “The program office has a very different view. The truth is that we don’t know which will prove to be correct, but there’s no reason to believe our testing regime will result in the kind of delays the JET is predicting.”
The Joint Estimate Team’s report was given to congressional committees last year and was not hidden or suppressed by the Pentagon, Morrell said. He said it is now being dredged up by F-22 supporters.
Moreover, the Pentagon has the ability to fund increased testing to make up for any potential delays, he said.
The administration has requested billions of dollars more than last year to hasten the production of F-35 test aircraft, Morrell noted, saying that the program’s success depends on the funding.
John R. Kent, a spokesman for the F-35’s main contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., said that, despite the estimate team’s findings, there has been no change made to the official F-35 production schedule.
Cheryl Limrick, spokeswoman for the F‑35 program office, said the “JET analysis is grounded in past performance of other legacy fighter programs and does not fully acknowledge proactive F-35 management steps.”
Air Superiority
Administration officials and senators repeatedly touted the F-35 program as the best bet to preserve U.S. air power superiority and as a primary reason to cap the F‑22 program at 187 planes. The Senate voted for the cap, 58-40, on July 21.
“If properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a July 16 speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, “if — and it’s a big if — money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft.”
Experts said Gates’ efforts to pressure senators to end F-22 production would have been hurt had the Joint Estimate Team’s findings been widely known.
“If this information had been part of the debate over the last couple of months, several Democrats, many of whom switched their votes at the last minute, would have been much harder to persuade,” said Tom Donnelly, director of defense studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Any delay in full production of the F‑35 would affect the entire fighter fleet, Donnelly said, because the F-35 is meant to take the place of so many planes, including the F-15, F-16 and F-18.
Although the Senate voted to strip the defense authorization bill (S 1390) of funding to procure F-22s beyond 187 planes, the debate over the plane is sure to resurface when the House and Senate move their fiscal 2010 draft Defense appropriations bills. “The F‑22 debate is not over, so the administration’s credibility on the F-35 could really be hurt by this information,” Donnelly said.
Even senators who were fighting to save the F-22 referred to 2014 as the Pentagon’s official estimate for commencing full production, although there were hints that it might change.
“The F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in 2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back four years to 2014,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn., said during floor debate. Dodd, an F‑22 supporter, added, “There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.”
A delay in F-35 production could have international implications as well, because several allied countries are tied into the F‑35 program and are depending on that plane to contribute to their defense structures.
“Customers such as the United Kingdom, the Air National Guard, the Marine Corps and others are on very tight schedules because their current equipment is rapidly aging out,” said Douglas Birkey, director of government relations for the Air Force Association. “They need the F-35 as a backfill.”
Delays Attributed to Design Changes
The Joint Estimate Team reports internally to the Pentagon and includes representatives from each of the military services.
After extensive evaluations that included site visits and meetings with the program’s contractors, the team determined that added delays were caused by ongoing complications with the engineering and design changes to the plane, as well as software problems, Senate aides said.
The team’s findings were based on data from September 2008, and the next report won’t be available until at least October, likely well past consideration of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations and authorization bills, the aide said.
The GAO reported in March that delays to the F-35 program schedule, as noted by the Joint Estimate Team, could add as much as $7.4 billion to its cost, and the Defense Department’s desire to accelerate production could cost an additional $33.4 billion,
F-35 “development will cost more and take longer than reported to the Congress last year,” the GAO report stated, adding that the Pentagon wants to accelerate procurement “despite cost and schedule troubles.”
Appropriators are dubious about speeding up F-35 production and have already reduced the president’s request for F‑35 procurement by $530 million in the House Defense appropriations bill, shifting much of that money toward research.
“This is a cut because we think they just can’t spend the money [that they requested],” said Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “They’ve got to do a better job of oversight.”
Talk of the program’s problems comes amid intense debate over the future of another fighter plane, the F-22. Defenders of the F-22 argue that continued production is vital to national security.
The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation’s combat aircraft needs.
Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.
The Pentagon’s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.
That’s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion. The discrepancy between the Joint Estimate Team and the Joint Program Office was noted in a March report by the GAO, but it received little attention at the time.
“In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office’s projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimate Team found,” said one Senate aide who was briefed on the findings.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., who has often criticized the F-35 program and has called it the “Joint Strike Failure,” said his attempts to get internal Pentagon data on the program have often been rebuffed.
“They are wrapped so tight on that F‑35,” said Bond, who added that the Pentagon is so invested in the program that it is loath to release negative information, especially during a debate over Air Force funding.
“They bet too much on the F-35. It’s too big to fail,” Bond said. “It’s like Citigroup.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said there is no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, which is due next year, but he said more testing is needed to determine whether full production would be able to begin on schedule.
“The JET is not the gospel. It is but one view, albeit an important one, of our testing program,” Morrell said. “The program office has a very different view. The truth is that we don’t know which will prove to be correct, but there’s no reason to believe our testing regime will result in the kind of delays the JET is predicting.”
The Joint Estimate Team’s report was given to congressional committees last year and was not hidden or suppressed by the Pentagon, Morrell said. He said it is now being dredged up by F-22 supporters.
Moreover, the Pentagon has the ability to fund increased testing to make up for any potential delays, he said.
The administration has requested billions of dollars more than last year to hasten the production of F-35 test aircraft, Morrell noted, saying that the program’s success depends on the funding.
John R. Kent, a spokesman for the F-35’s main contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., said that, despite the estimate team’s findings, there has been no change made to the official F-35 production schedule.
Cheryl Limrick, spokeswoman for the F‑35 program office, said the “JET analysis is grounded in past performance of other legacy fighter programs and does not fully acknowledge proactive F-35 management steps.”
Air Superiority
Administration officials and senators repeatedly touted the F-35 program as the best bet to preserve U.S. air power superiority and as a primary reason to cap the F‑22 program at 187 planes. The Senate voted for the cap, 58-40, on July 21.
“If properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a July 16 speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, “if — and it’s a big if — money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft.”
Experts said Gates’ efforts to pressure senators to end F-22 production would have been hurt had the Joint Estimate Team’s findings been widely known.
“If this information had been part of the debate over the last couple of months, several Democrats, many of whom switched their votes at the last minute, would have been much harder to persuade,” said Tom Donnelly, director of defense studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Any delay in full production of the F‑35 would affect the entire fighter fleet, Donnelly said, because the F-35 is meant to take the place of so many planes, including the F-15, F-16 and F-18.
Although the Senate voted to strip the defense authorization bill (S 1390) of funding to procure F-22s beyond 187 planes, the debate over the plane is sure to resurface when the House and Senate move their fiscal 2010 draft Defense appropriations bills. “The F‑22 debate is not over, so the administration’s credibility on the F-35 could really be hurt by this information,” Donnelly said.
Even senators who were fighting to save the F-22 referred to 2014 as the Pentagon’s official estimate for commencing full production, although there were hints that it might change.
“The F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in 2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back four years to 2014,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn., said during floor debate. Dodd, an F‑22 supporter, added, “There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.”
A delay in F-35 production could have international implications as well, because several allied countries are tied into the F‑35 program and are depending on that plane to contribute to their defense structures.
“Customers such as the United Kingdom, the Air National Guard, the Marine Corps and others are on very tight schedules because their current equipment is rapidly aging out,” said Douglas Birkey, director of government relations for the Air Force Association. “They need the F-35 as a backfill.”
Delays Attributed to Design Changes
The Joint Estimate Team reports internally to the Pentagon and includes representatives from each of the military services.
After extensive evaluations that included site visits and meetings with the program’s contractors, the team determined that added delays were caused by ongoing complications with the engineering and design changes to the plane, as well as software problems, Senate aides said.
The team’s findings were based on data from September 2008, and the next report won’t be available until at least October, likely well past consideration of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations and authorization bills, the aide said.
The GAO reported in March that delays to the F-35 program schedule, as noted by the Joint Estimate Team, could add as much as $7.4 billion to its cost, and the Defense Department’s desire to accelerate production could cost an additional $33.4 billion,
F-35 “development will cost more and take longer than reported to the Congress last year,” the GAO report stated, adding that the Pentagon wants to accelerate procurement “despite cost and schedule troubles.”
Appropriators are dubious about speeding up F-35 production and have already reduced the president’s request for F‑35 procurement by $530 million in the House Defense appropriations bill, shifting much of that money toward research.
“This is a cut because we think they just can’t spend the money [that they requested],” said Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “They’ve got to do a better job of oversight.”
Comment