Fighter jets hit by cost blowout
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fighter jets hit by cost blowout
Thurs "The Australian"
Fighter jets hit by cost blowout
By Cameron Stewart
April 29, 2004
THE largest defence project in Australia’s history — the $16 billion plan to buy a new fleet of US - fighter jets — is being undermined by a blowout in costs , production schedules and design problems with the new plane.
The problems have become so pronounced that US Navy secretary Gordon England has admitted US congressional support for the $US240 billion ($328 million) Joint Strike Fighter program is being undermined.
The yet-to-be-built JSF model , which Australia plans to buy, is said to be about 680kg overweight in the design phase — a flaw that, if unsolved, would curtail its ability to carry out effective combat missions.
The RAAF’s director-general of new combat capability, Air Commodore John Harvey, told The Australian yesterday the latest setbacks were "disappointing" but he was confident the JSF would turn out to be an excellent aircraft.
Over the past 30 days, Lockheed Martin's JSF project, based in Fort Worth, Texas, has experienced a string of new cost, design and production setbacks on top of those revealed late last year.
Designers have been unable to make the aircraft light enough to reach its promised range and payload capacity, forcing a 18-month delay in a critical design review that was scheduled to take place this month.
Mr England also told the US House Armed Services Committee this month that the cost of each fighter plane had risen by more than 15 per cent on original estimates.
The JSF project , which will produce about 2600 fighters for the US and its allies, is central to Australia's future defence needs, which require a timely replacement for the aging fleet of F/A-18 fighters and F-111 bombers.
The RAAF is relying on US promises the first JSF will be delivered in 2012 , but delays in the production schedule have thrown this into doubt.
Any long-term delay in the delivery of the JSF would pose a dilemma for the RAAF, which would have to lease an interim fighter from another country or pay more to keep its existing fighters in the air for several more years.
The Howard Government has invested $US150 million ($205 million)to help design the JSF and says it plans to eventually buy up to 100 in what would be the single largest government purchase since Federation.
Commodore Harvey told The Australian delays were a frustrating but inevitable part of such a large and complex technical project.
"The situation is disappointing regarding the costs and schedule issues but at the end of the day it will still be a very good aircraft and we expect it to suit our needs."
It is believed the Government expected to pay about $55 million for each fighter, but that cost is now likely to rise substantially.
In January, the US Defence Department said it was adding $US5 billion to the JSF development budget and an extra year to the project's timetable because of the plane's weight problems.
Mr England said the setbacks had captured the attention of the US Congress, which has to approve future funding for the JSF project.
"We need them to support the revised program. We don't want to delay it any further and drive up the costs — we need the airplane."
===========================================
Fighter jets hit by cost blowout
By Cameron Stewart
April 29, 2004
THE largest defence project in Australia’s history — the $16 billion plan to buy a new fleet of US - fighter jets — is being undermined by a blowout in costs , production schedules and design problems with the new plane.
The problems have become so pronounced that US Navy secretary Gordon England has admitted US congressional support for the $US240 billion ($328 million) Joint Strike Fighter program is being undermined.
The yet-to-be-built JSF model , which Australia plans to buy, is said to be about 680kg overweight in the design phase — a flaw that, if unsolved, would curtail its ability to carry out effective combat missions.
The RAAF’s director-general of new combat capability, Air Commodore John Harvey, told The Australian yesterday the latest setbacks were "disappointing" but he was confident the JSF would turn out to be an excellent aircraft.
Over the past 30 days, Lockheed Martin's JSF project, based in Fort Worth, Texas, has experienced a string of new cost, design and production setbacks on top of those revealed late last year.
Designers have been unable to make the aircraft light enough to reach its promised range and payload capacity, forcing a 18-month delay in a critical design review that was scheduled to take place this month.
Mr England also told the US House Armed Services Committee this month that the cost of each fighter plane had risen by more than 15 per cent on original estimates.
The JSF project , which will produce about 2600 fighters for the US and its allies, is central to Australia's future defence needs, which require a timely replacement for the aging fleet of F/A-18 fighters and F-111 bombers.
The RAAF is relying on US promises the first JSF will be delivered in 2012 , but delays in the production schedule have thrown this into doubt.
Any long-term delay in the delivery of the JSF would pose a dilemma for the RAAF, which would have to lease an interim fighter from another country or pay more to keep its existing fighters in the air for several more years.
The Howard Government has invested $US150 million ($205 million)to help design the JSF and says it plans to eventually buy up to 100 in what would be the single largest government purchase since Federation.
Commodore Harvey told The Australian delays were a frustrating but inevitable part of such a large and complex technical project.
"The situation is disappointing regarding the costs and schedule issues but at the end of the day it will still be a very good aircraft and we expect it to suit our needs."
It is believed the Government expected to pay about $55 million for each fighter, but that cost is now likely to rise substantially.
In January, the US Defence Department said it was adding $US5 billion to the JSF development budget and an extra year to the project's timetable because of the plane's weight problems.
Mr England said the setbacks had captured the attention of the US Congress, which has to approve future funding for the JSF project.
"We need them to support the revised program. We don't want to delay it any further and drive up the costs — we need the airplane."
===========================================
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lads at Lockheed are experts at solving virtually impossible tasks.
The came across the same thing with the U2 and SR71 which were incredibly complex for their day, especially the later which was something near incredible!
On the SR71 they actually had to develop new manufacturing processes for materials that had never been used before - along with newly designed machining tools, machines and fabrication methods.
It was all trial and error and they did it in record time.
Yeah, that was years ago but never underestimate the Lockheed Corporation.
The came across the same thing with the U2 and SR71 which were incredibly complex for their day, especially the later which was something near incredible!
On the SR71 they actually had to develop new manufacturing processes for materials that had never been used before - along with newly designed machining tools, machines and fabrication methods.
It was all trial and error and they did it in record time.
Yeah, that was years ago but never underestimate the Lockheed Corporation.
Yes, Lockheed is a damn fine airplane company, but the SR-71 and U-2 were Skunk Works projects, not "mainline" Lockheed stuff. They were also products of their times - and well ahead of their time.
The JSF is now at the early stage of post-prototype development, manifesting all the usual problems as various experts get in on the act with "let's make it capable of doing this" and "why can't we make it do that" ideas. It's bound to get fat and heavy and ugly. Reason? Because it isn't an F-22. It's the alternative, the also-ran that has to be jack-of-all-trades and will therefore be master of none. It's a "wannabee".
Right now, I'll bet the Skunk Works is busy with a lot more high-priority projects than a JSF which is getting "portly". What's more, I'll bet there are so many high-priced Pentagon reputations at stake that the JSF will never be given a Skunk Works re-work. To do so would be to admit failure or incompetence - or both.
Basically, whatever the JSF ends up becoming, that's what we will buy. It may turn out to be the aerial equivalent of the Collins-class submarine, or it may turn out to be a very cost-effective aerial weapons platform...and hell may freeze over the day we take delivery of the first one. I don't know what will happen.
But I do recall the history of a couple of defence equipment acquisiton projects where we bought "off the plan":-
i) The protracted delays on the F-111 purchase, and
ii) the ongoing systems integration and readiness-for-service problems resulting from the decision to build a Swedish submarine designed for Baltic-style operations in an Australian shipyard that had never built as much as a tugboat before, by a company that had never built a submarine before and using sensors and weapons systems never before mated to a computer-driven threat analysis system that is so hugely complex it will probably never work, right up until the day in 30 years or so when we scrap those hulls and set off on our next defence acquisition blunder.
I'd like to be optimistic about our planned acquisition of the F-35 or whatever the JSF ends up being designated, but given our propensity for buying a system designed for one American service and then operating it with the other Australian service (F/A-18 - designed for US Navy, operated by RAAF, Orion the same) I wouldn't be at all surprised if, by the time we actually get an F-35, the only armed service we have left is the Army, and they get to operate it...but only for field exercises because they'll be just too expensive to actually place in harm's way!
Of course costs will blow out. I wouldn't be surprised if they do to the the extent we can afford just 20 units, but only 6 will be combat-ready. The rest will be mothballed because they are too expensive to maintain - and spare parts from the Americans cost so much.
Why is it every time we re-invent the wheel we have to have huge research projects lasting two dedades or more to decide which colour it should be anyway?
The JSF is now at the early stage of post-prototype development, manifesting all the usual problems as various experts get in on the act with "let's make it capable of doing this" and "why can't we make it do that" ideas. It's bound to get fat and heavy and ugly. Reason? Because it isn't an F-22. It's the alternative, the also-ran that has to be jack-of-all-trades and will therefore be master of none. It's a "wannabee".
Right now, I'll bet the Skunk Works is busy with a lot more high-priority projects than a JSF which is getting "portly". What's more, I'll bet there are so many high-priced Pentagon reputations at stake that the JSF will never be given a Skunk Works re-work. To do so would be to admit failure or incompetence - or both.
Basically, whatever the JSF ends up becoming, that's what we will buy. It may turn out to be the aerial equivalent of the Collins-class submarine, or it may turn out to be a very cost-effective aerial weapons platform...and hell may freeze over the day we take delivery of the first one. I don't know what will happen.
But I do recall the history of a couple of defence equipment acquisiton projects where we bought "off the plan":-
i) The protracted delays on the F-111 purchase, and
ii) the ongoing systems integration and readiness-for-service problems resulting from the decision to build a Swedish submarine designed for Baltic-style operations in an Australian shipyard that had never built as much as a tugboat before, by a company that had never built a submarine before and using sensors and weapons systems never before mated to a computer-driven threat analysis system that is so hugely complex it will probably never work, right up until the day in 30 years or so when we scrap those hulls and set off on our next defence acquisition blunder.
I'd like to be optimistic about our planned acquisition of the F-35 or whatever the JSF ends up being designated, but given our propensity for buying a system designed for one American service and then operating it with the other Australian service (F/A-18 - designed for US Navy, operated by RAAF, Orion the same) I wouldn't be at all surprised if, by the time we actually get an F-35, the only armed service we have left is the Army, and they get to operate it...but only for field exercises because they'll be just too expensive to actually place in harm's way!
Of course costs will blow out. I wouldn't be surprised if they do to the the extent we can afford just 20 units, but only 6 will be combat-ready. The rest will be mothballed because they are too expensive to maintain - and spare parts from the Americans cost so much.
Why is it every time we re-invent the wheel we have to have huge research projects lasting two dedades or more to decide which colour it should be anyway?
Last edited by criticalmass; 29th Apr 2004 at 12:15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We get vulnerable fighter jets
Fri "The Australian"
We get vulnerable fighter jets
By Cameron Stewart
April 30, 2004
AUSTRALIA'S new fighter jets are likely to have fewer stealth features than the same model being built for the US military, making them more vulnerable in combat.
Doubts about the stealth capability of the export version of the Joint Strike Fighter come in the wake of audit reports and testimony to the US Congress outlining a string of recent setbacks to the $US240 billion ($335 billion) JSF program.
In its biggest defence purchase ever, Australia plans to pay about $16 billion for up to 100 of the yet-to-be-built JSFs to replace its ageing F/A-18 fighters and F-111 bombers from 2012.
However, as The Australian reported yesterday, a blowout in costs, production schedules and design problems have cast a cloud over whether the JSF will be delivered in time.
And the latest edition of the Jane's International Defence Review reports that JSF program officials in the US have indicated there will be fewer stealth features on the export version of the fighter, being built by Lockheed Martin.
"The clear implication is that the 'international' JSF would be easier to detect by hostile radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack," the report states. "That in turn would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the fighter."
The Pentagon has traditionally been reluctant to offer the same level of stealth technology to other countries, even close allies such as Australia, for fear that it could fall into hostile hands.
Aldo Borgu of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said any cutback to the stealth features of the JSF would be a blow because "the Government has stressed that it was the stealth features of the aircraft that put it above any other competitors".
However, John Howard yesterday defended the JSF, saying it was a fantastic aircraft concept.
"You get a lot of these reports about cost blowouts," the Prime Minister said. "Cost blowouts do occur and have always occurred in every country in relation to the development of new technology connected with new weaponry. It's often difficult to forecast and forsee in advance what's going to happen.
"(But) It's a fantastic aircraft concept, it really is, and it will give an enormous defence reassurance to the Royal Australian Air Force when we get it."
An audit report by the US General Accounting Office issued on March 25 but unreported in Australia concluded that the JSF program was now at a "critical crossroad" and that recent setbacks would "add significant cost and delay to the development schedule".
The main problem is the aircraft is significantly overweight, which could limit its combat effectiveness.
==========================================
We get vulnerable fighter jets
By Cameron Stewart
April 30, 2004
AUSTRALIA'S new fighter jets are likely to have fewer stealth features than the same model being built for the US military, making them more vulnerable in combat.
Doubts about the stealth capability of the export version of the Joint Strike Fighter come in the wake of audit reports and testimony to the US Congress outlining a string of recent setbacks to the $US240 billion ($335 billion) JSF program.
In its biggest defence purchase ever, Australia plans to pay about $16 billion for up to 100 of the yet-to-be-built JSFs to replace its ageing F/A-18 fighters and F-111 bombers from 2012.
However, as The Australian reported yesterday, a blowout in costs, production schedules and design problems have cast a cloud over whether the JSF will be delivered in time.
And the latest edition of the Jane's International Defence Review reports that JSF program officials in the US have indicated there will be fewer stealth features on the export version of the fighter, being built by Lockheed Martin.
"The clear implication is that the 'international' JSF would be easier to detect by hostile radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack," the report states. "That in turn would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the fighter."
The Pentagon has traditionally been reluctant to offer the same level of stealth technology to other countries, even close allies such as Australia, for fear that it could fall into hostile hands.
Aldo Borgu of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said any cutback to the stealth features of the JSF would be a blow because "the Government has stressed that it was the stealth features of the aircraft that put it above any other competitors".
However, John Howard yesterday defended the JSF, saying it was a fantastic aircraft concept.
"You get a lot of these reports about cost blowouts," the Prime Minister said. "Cost blowouts do occur and have always occurred in every country in relation to the development of new technology connected with new weaponry. It's often difficult to forecast and forsee in advance what's going to happen.
"(But) It's a fantastic aircraft concept, it really is, and it will give an enormous defence reassurance to the Royal Australian Air Force when we get it."
An audit report by the US General Accounting Office issued on March 25 but unreported in Australia concluded that the JSF program was now at a "critical crossroad" and that recent setbacks would "add significant cost and delay to the development schedule".
The main problem is the aircraft is significantly overweight, which could limit its combat effectiveness.
==========================================
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of years ago Jim Thorn opined that the JSF "order" was actually a clever plot by Defence to get the jet they really want, the F22.
He cited the same things we are hearing now, cost over-runs and inevitable software budget and time blow-outs.
These blow outs would drastically delay the arrival of the JSF, and the government would be presented with a critical period of time with no JSF available, no F18's avaialble, and the F22 now a fully mature system of which an Australian order would bring the unit cost down.
As conspiracy theories go.... it was a good un.
Any current air-force types here that wouldn't go for the F22 over the JSF any day of the week?
He cited the same things we are hearing now, cost over-runs and inevitable software budget and time blow-outs.
These blow outs would drastically delay the arrival of the JSF, and the government would be presented with a critical period of time with no JSF available, no F18's avaialble, and the F22 now a fully mature system of which an Australian order would bring the unit cost down.
As conspiracy theories go.... it was a good un.
Any current air-force types here that wouldn't go for the F22 over the JSF any day of the week?
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the US ever offered anyone F22? Why would you sell the "silver bullet" aircraft to someone else.
And if we would get a "dumb-downed" less stealthy JSF, if we got F22 - it would be a B version - less stealth/capable.
And if we would get a "dumb-downed" less stealthy JSF, if we got F22 - it would be a B version - less stealth/capable.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Has the US ever offered anyone F22? Why would you sell the "silver bullet" aircraft to someone else.
Well they sold the F-15 abroad, it was the 'silver bullet' of its day and the aircraft the F-22 is meant to replace?
Well they sold the F-15 abroad, it was the 'silver bullet' of its day and the aircraft the F-22 is meant to replace?
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream on Ugly.
The F-22 (if you believe it's press) is streets ahead of any opposition, and has significant features that are unlike similar so-called systems on JSF for example.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about buying F-22 - but I've never seen it offered...........
"No, you can't have F-22......but JSF is available......"
The F-22 (if you believe it's press) is streets ahead of any opposition, and has significant features that are unlike similar so-called systems on JSF for example.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about buying F-22 - but I've never seen it offered...........
"No, you can't have F-22......but JSF is available......"
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream on Ugly.
The F-22 (if you believe it's press) is streets ahead of any opposition, and has significant features that are unlike similar so-called systems on JSF for example.
The F-22 (if you believe it's press) is streets ahead of any opposition, and has significant features that are unlike similar so-called systems on JSF for example.
When it comes time for these countries to upgrade I wonder what they'll be offered?
Would you take the 'jack of all trades' F-35 that the US offers or go and buy some SU-35s like all our neighbours are buying?
The F-35 is supposed to replaced a variety of aircraft like the AV-8B, A-10 and F/A-18.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you sell the "silver bullet" aircraft to someone else?
PS..... A B version of a silver bullet would be a bronze bullet. Still a nasty bullet in anyones language.
Last edited by The_Cutest_of_Borg; 30th Apr 2004 at 06:29.
