JSF and A400M at risk?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Center for Defense Information: No Surprise in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Some have remarked that the cost overruns, management screw-ups, performance failures and schedule delays on the F-35 were surprises, unexpected or unanticipated. This would be the case only if you are new to defense as an issue, willing to mindlessly follow empty-headed conventional wisdom as it wriggles its way through the corridors of power in Washington, or wake up each morning believing in the tooth fairy. Friend and military reform colleague Chuck Spinney explains and documents his more than decade-old prediction from the past of what is now happening in the F-35 program. Needless to say, all of Washington's national security elite ignored Chuck's predictions back then, just as they will hope to ignore his reminder and his broader lesson today.
Chuck Spinney's comments follow below:
The recent publication of the 2010 QDR reveals once again, in typically leaden and mind-numbing prose, how the Pentagon is incapable of coming to grips with the mismatches among strategy, programs, and resources that its decision makers create for themselves, even when budgets are at the highest levels since the end of WWII. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (also called the JSF) has become a metaphor for the larger mess of the Pentagon's self-destructive pathological behavior.
Consider the first sentence in the Wired.com report attached below - "If the Pentagon doesn’t get its Joint Strike Fighter just right, the U.S. military is screwed." Just right? Give me a break.
The JSF, like all Pentagon procurements, is in deep trouble, and Secretary Gates just fired the two-star program director and will replace him with three-star - apparently operating under the assumption that pumping up an already bloated bureaucracy will get the JSF problem "just right." That is more nonsense - this disaster was written in the wind: the seeds were planted in the early 1990s, and the outcome was perfectly predictable - the simple fact is that the JSF was doomed not to be the "right stuff" from the very beginning...............[more]
Some have remarked that the cost overruns, management screw-ups, performance failures and schedule delays on the F-35 were surprises, unexpected or unanticipated. This would be the case only if you are new to defense as an issue, willing to mindlessly follow empty-headed conventional wisdom as it wriggles its way through the corridors of power in Washington, or wake up each morning believing in the tooth fairy. Friend and military reform colleague Chuck Spinney explains and documents his more than decade-old prediction from the past of what is now happening in the F-35 program. Needless to say, all of Washington's national security elite ignored Chuck's predictions back then, just as they will hope to ignore his reminder and his broader lesson today.
Chuck Spinney's comments follow below:
The recent publication of the 2010 QDR reveals once again, in typically leaden and mind-numbing prose, how the Pentagon is incapable of coming to grips with the mismatches among strategy, programs, and resources that its decision makers create for themselves, even when budgets are at the highest levels since the end of WWII. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (also called the JSF) has become a metaphor for the larger mess of the Pentagon's self-destructive pathological behavior.
Consider the first sentence in the Wired.com report attached below - "If the Pentagon doesn’t get its Joint Strike Fighter just right, the U.S. military is screwed." Just right? Give me a break.
The JSF, like all Pentagon procurements, is in deep trouble, and Secretary Gates just fired the two-star program director and will replace him with three-star - apparently operating under the assumption that pumping up an already bloated bureaucracy will get the JSF problem "just right." That is more nonsense - this disaster was written in the wind: the seeds were planted in the early 1990s, and the outcome was perfectly predictable - the simple fact is that the JSF was doomed not to be the "right stuff" from the very beginning...............[more]
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M prospects
Silence from all concerned now that the 31/01 deadline has passed: the Ministerial minions seem to be letting Mr. Enders "twist in the wind", though various "leaks" have suggested what seems like a "reasonable" solution.
However, in all the argy-bargy before the end of January, as well as fellow Pruners' comments, the costs mentioned per aircraft only apply to the current production run. Surely the market is not just the "launch customers" (for any aircraft), but the percentage of the potential market it can expect to gain. Mr. Enders has some erudite market analysts and forecasters at his disposal, who must know that wherever there's a C-130, there's a potential A400M sale, sooner or later, and should be talking about that, in true Airbus style.
Boeing people have already said that as the A400M "slips to the right", sales prospects for the C-17 open up.
There has been some talk about "Airbus should not be getting involved in military aircraft", as if the A400M was a death-dealing scatterer of nasty things that go bang, rather than a lifter of goods and people into rough fields - cue Haiti anyone?
There's a pretty good market for the A400M out there. It would be good for all if that were being stressed even more strongly than the cost problems to date.
PS Nice to see the news that MSN4 is in final assembly ... Good on yer, lads & lasses in the team !
However, in all the argy-bargy before the end of January, as well as fellow Pruners' comments, the costs mentioned per aircraft only apply to the current production run. Surely the market is not just the "launch customers" (for any aircraft), but the percentage of the potential market it can expect to gain. Mr. Enders has some erudite market analysts and forecasters at his disposal, who must know that wherever there's a C-130, there's a potential A400M sale, sooner or later, and should be talking about that, in true Airbus style.
Boeing people have already said that as the A400M "slips to the right", sales prospects for the C-17 open up.
There has been some talk about "Airbus should not be getting involved in military aircraft", as if the A400M was a death-dealing scatterer of nasty things that go bang, rather than a lifter of goods and people into rough fields - cue Haiti anyone?
There's a pretty good market for the A400M out there. It would be good for all if that were being stressed even more strongly than the cost problems to date.
PS Nice to see the news that MSN4 is in final assembly ... Good on yer, lads & lasses in the team !
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if this will end with some arrangement that sees everyone just walking away in a dignified manner, all eating their individual losses, no compensation to be paid by Airbus or whatever you call it, just to be shut of this program that has turned into such a vast money pit. There seems to be enough pain to go around now without creating more by pouring billions of euros more into this project which is nowhere near delivering usable airlift, the original stated idea.
Okay, perhaps it was much more about job creation and new technology development since there must have been cheaper ways to get the airlift but it really does look as if we have now got to the point where the hole is deep enough for everyone to agree to stop digging.
Okay, perhaps it was much more about job creation and new technology development since there must have been cheaper ways to get the airlift but it really does look as if we have now got to the point where the hole is deep enough for everyone to agree to stop digging.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of holes ...
Analogous to the old Airframe fitter's "Get a bigger hammer", the "Big Hole" solution used to be "Get a longer ladder". However, it feels horribly as if "the" decision has already been taken to wrap up the project, but EADS and the MinDef minions are just waltzing around each other to avoid any perceived "responsibility" for pulling the plug. And, while EADS says "Monday's plug-pull day", DefMinions seem to think that the wire is dated 28/2. As Monday 15/2 is the start of the week MSN 1 was expected to start the second phase of flight testing ...
When (Ok, let's keep the optimism tap open for a bit) IF the project is abandoned, there's still the important matter of a capability gap that neither the C-130 nor the C-17 seems to fill. So ... What next? Hand the whole thing to e.g. Lockheed Martin, for them to pick up and sell to the (once) A400M "launch" customers ??
Plus, with Opel in Germany + Vauxhall in UK, the Big Greek Problem and Spanish unemployment at nearly unbearable levels, European governments must surely be looking for some way to avoid several thousand more skilled workers in the job queue... Perhaps the parties concerned can't find a "form of words" ...
Frustrating as it is for onlookers like Yrs Truly, I feel deeply for all involved hands on in the project so far. Best of European luck, ladies and gents ...
When (Ok, let's keep the optimism tap open for a bit) IF the project is abandoned, there's still the important matter of a capability gap that neither the C-130 nor the C-17 seems to fill. So ... What next? Hand the whole thing to e.g. Lockheed Martin, for them to pick up and sell to the (once) A400M "launch" customers ??
Plus, with Opel in Germany + Vauxhall in UK, the Big Greek Problem and Spanish unemployment at nearly unbearable levels, European governments must surely be looking for some way to avoid several thousand more skilled workers in the job queue... Perhaps the parties concerned can't find a "form of words" ...
Frustrating as it is for onlookers like Yrs Truly, I feel deeply for all involved hands on in the project so far. Best of European luck, ladies and gents ...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jig P / Mole Man
Well, let's see how the kabuki dance continues. Given the amount of work that the civil side of Airbus have, I'd be surprised if any jobs were to go if A400M were to bite the dust.
However.....
If I were Airbus, I'd be much more concerned about the fact that their inability / unwillingness to meet contracted capabilities and timescales at the time that the KC-X RFP is being discussed. As a result, it is much more "acceptable" for both sides for it to continue on until the USAF has started to make a decision.
It seems that the only things that is certain is that the RAF won't receive 25 A400Ms for the contracted price at anything like the original timescales: and no amount of spin can get Airbus away from these pretty stark facts.
S41
Well, let's see how the kabuki dance continues. Given the amount of work that the civil side of Airbus have, I'd be surprised if any jobs were to go if A400M were to bite the dust.
However.....
If I were Airbus, I'd be much more concerned about the fact that their inability / unwillingness to meet contracted capabilities and timescales at the time that the KC-X RFP is being discussed. As a result, it is much more "acceptable" for both sides for it to continue on until the USAF has started to make a decision.
It seems that the only things that is certain is that the RAF won't receive 25 A400Ms for the contracted price at anything like the original timescales: and no amount of spin can get Airbus away from these pretty stark facts.
S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmm.
You wouldn't be thinking that someone might drop a quiet word that, if the Pentagon/Congress divide the KC-X contract in half between the KC-767 and KC-45, EADS might walk away from the A400M and leave the AT market to LM (C-130) and Boeing (C-17)?
You wouldn't be thinking that someone might drop a quiet word that, if the Pentagon/Congress divide the KC-X contract in half between the KC-767 and KC-45, EADS might walk away from the A400M and leave the AT market to LM (C-130) and Boeing (C-17)?
Such a 'solution' would be wholly unacceptable to the French, for one.
If KC-X comes down in favour of the ageing Boeing Frankentanker 7-arse-7 (by the way, any luck with the pods or centreline hose yet, Bubba Boeing? It's been a few years now...), then it will prove that Spam military procurement is completely and utterly driven by politics.
If KC-X comes down in favour of the ageing Boeing Frankentanker 7-arse-7 (by the way, any luck with the pods or centreline hose yet, Bubba Boeing? It's been a few years now...), then it will prove that Spam military procurement is completely and utterly driven by politics.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
then it will prove that Spam military procurement is completely and utterly driven by politics.
Since Airbus originally won the KC-X competition with the KC-45 until the rules were bent yet again, the tanker programme wasn't always dominated by jingoism. 'Best for America's warfighters' (who invented that ridiculous term?) or whatever other puff Bubba Boeing wants to spin, the KC-767 still hasn't been delivered to Italy and 75% of the Italian tanker fleet is still in flight test. Lower risk than the KC-45? I hardly think so.
Anyone unfortunate enough to endure the 'rendition-class' comfort of travelling in a KC-767 will surely wonder why the A330 has vastly superior levels of passenger comfort. A minor point perhaps, but pretty significant for any 'warfighters' travelling to wherever the self-appointed World Policeman decides to invade next.
Anyone unfortunate enough to endure the 'rendition-class' comfort of travelling in a KC-767 will surely wonder why the A330 has vastly superior levels of passenger comfort. A minor point perhaps, but pretty significant for any 'warfighters' travelling to wherever the self-appointed World Policeman decides to invade next.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Solution
The RAF are already using AN124 aircraft for outsized cargo movements.
It seems obvious to buy new production models of AN124; at the same time, look at the AN70.
While we are on the subject, a few hundred MiL helicopters wouldn't go amiss.
And maybe the new Sukhoi 50 instead of the JSF ?
Time to take the whippet for a walk ..........
It seems obvious to buy new production models of AN124; at the same time, look at the AN70.
While we are on the subject, a few hundred MiL helicopters wouldn't go amiss.
And maybe the new Sukhoi 50 instead of the JSF ?
Time to take the whippet for a walk ..........
Delayed Military Airbus Needs Financial Rescue
More stuff from Germany
(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued Feb. 12, 2010)
Thousands of Europeans are employed building the 180 A400M military transport planes ordered by seven countries. But the project is billions of euros over budget, years behind schedule and in urgent need of funding.
Messy negotiations between European governments and Airbus manufacturer EADS have recently drawn into question the future of the company's beleaguered A400M military transport plane.
Delivery of the 180 planes ordered by seven countries in 2003 is now three years overdue, and what was a 20 billion euro fixed-price contract has [increased] to 27.6 billion euros ($37.4 billion). Mismanagement and technical difficulties have been blamed, and the company estimates it is spending between 100 and 150 million euros ($135 to $200 million) per month on the program.
Tens of thousands of European jobs are hanging in the balance, and EADS may lose 7.6 billion euros ($10.3 billion). The company has offered to continue the project and absorb 3.2 billion ($4.3 billion) in losses if governments cover 4.4 billion ($5.9 billion). Instead, nations have offered to cover 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion).
An EADS spokesman in Germany did not comment when asked about the negotiations on Thursday, but the company has threatened to renege on its contract. In that case it would have to repay some 6.4 billion euros ($8.6 billion) in advances.
Company under pressure
Zafer Ruzgar, an analyst with Independent Research in Frankfurt, told Deutsche Welle he is convinced European governments will extend financial support to EADS. "There are hardly any alternatives available to the countries involved. They won't want to wager approaching Boeing; they'll prefer to avoid that," he said. "And EADS certainly won't want to give up on the project because it's a prestige project, and they want to expand their military business."
The question which remains is how much money will be lent to EADS, according to Ruzgar. Pressure to resolve the issue quickly is mounting because EADS will likely publicize its 2009 financial statement in March.
"At that point investors will want to know what risks are associated with the program and how significant its expenses are," he said. "So long as we don't know for certain what direction things are moving in – whether they continue the program or cancel it – that absolutely will depress the value of EADS shares."
Controversy in Germany
Germany has ordered 60 of the planes, and a domestic controversy took place recently when the newspaper Handelsblatt reported Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was planning to use funds earmarked for supporting mid-sized businesses to lend EADS nearly one billion euros.
A spokesman for Germany's Federal Ministry of Defense denied the claim. "There is no relationship or connection to (those funds)," he told Deutsche Welle.
The spokesman did not believe negotiations with EADS will collapse, and said the A400M is unparalleled in its combination of capabilities. It can fly long distances and very high and fast for a propeller plane, and it can carry a lot of weight and land on rough terrain. The German military needs new transport planes, but the A400M is "not completely without alternatives," he said.
"All of those capabilities concentrated into one platform are singular," he said. "At the moment no other individual platform can provide what this plane can. Of course we are talking about a three- to four-year delay to the original timeline. Should this project fall through, then we would have to look into the alternatives, which absolutely do exist. It is possible this could lead to further delays."
Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey have also ordered A400M planes. A NATO spokesman contacted by Deutsche Welle declined to comment on the strategic value of the planes.
-ends-
Thousands of Europeans are employed building the 180 A400M military transport planes ordered by seven countries. But the project is billions of euros over budget, years behind schedule and in urgent need of funding.
Messy negotiations between European governments and Airbus manufacturer EADS have recently drawn into question the future of the company's beleaguered A400M military transport plane.
Delivery of the 180 planes ordered by seven countries in 2003 is now three years overdue, and what was a 20 billion euro fixed-price contract has [increased] to 27.6 billion euros ($37.4 billion). Mismanagement and technical difficulties have been blamed, and the company estimates it is spending between 100 and 150 million euros ($135 to $200 million) per month on the program.
Tens of thousands of European jobs are hanging in the balance, and EADS may lose 7.6 billion euros ($10.3 billion). The company has offered to continue the project and absorb 3.2 billion ($4.3 billion) in losses if governments cover 4.4 billion ($5.9 billion). Instead, nations have offered to cover 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion).
An EADS spokesman in Germany did not comment when asked about the negotiations on Thursday, but the company has threatened to renege on its contract. In that case it would have to repay some 6.4 billion euros ($8.6 billion) in advances.
Company under pressure
Zafer Ruzgar, an analyst with Independent Research in Frankfurt, told Deutsche Welle he is convinced European governments will extend financial support to EADS. "There are hardly any alternatives available to the countries involved. They won't want to wager approaching Boeing; they'll prefer to avoid that," he said. "And EADS certainly won't want to give up on the project because it's a prestige project, and they want to expand their military business."
The question which remains is how much money will be lent to EADS, according to Ruzgar. Pressure to resolve the issue quickly is mounting because EADS will likely publicize its 2009 financial statement in March.
"At that point investors will want to know what risks are associated with the program and how significant its expenses are," he said. "So long as we don't know for certain what direction things are moving in – whether they continue the program or cancel it – that absolutely will depress the value of EADS shares."
Controversy in Germany
Germany has ordered 60 of the planes, and a domestic controversy took place recently when the newspaper Handelsblatt reported Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was planning to use funds earmarked for supporting mid-sized businesses to lend EADS nearly one billion euros.
A spokesman for Germany's Federal Ministry of Defense denied the claim. "There is no relationship or connection to (those funds)," he told Deutsche Welle.
The spokesman did not believe negotiations with EADS will collapse, and said the A400M is unparalleled in its combination of capabilities. It can fly long distances and very high and fast for a propeller plane, and it can carry a lot of weight and land on rough terrain. The German military needs new transport planes, but the A400M is "not completely without alternatives," he said.
"All of those capabilities concentrated into one platform are singular," he said. "At the moment no other individual platform can provide what this plane can. Of course we are talking about a three- to four-year delay to the original timeline. Should this project fall through, then we would have to look into the alternatives, which absolutely do exist. It is possible this could lead to further delays."
Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey have also ordered A400M planes. A NATO spokesman contacted by Deutsche Welle declined to comment on the strategic value of the planes.
-ends-
Champagne anyone...?
And so it goes on...
Telegraph 15 Feb 10
Representatives from Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey on Monday submitted the proposal to EADS, Airbus's parent company. EADS must now respond, a spokesman for the German defence ministry said.
"The buyer nations are thereby confirming their firm intention of continuing the A400M project. It's now important to see how the industry will react to the proposals," the ministry spokesman told a news conference.
He added that it has been agreed by the parties to remain silent on the details of the funding plan. The partners have been at odds for months over how to resolve a funding shortfall on the A400M troop carrier.
The €20bn (£17.4bn) project faces estimated losses of €7.6bn, of which EADS has so far pledged to absorb €3.2bn. EADS has asked buyers to share some of the losses to prevent damage to Europe's airliner business and safeguard around 10,000 A400M jobs.
Sources familiar with the talks said in addition to offering to cover €2bn, buyer nations were now prepared to put up guarantees worth €1.5bn, leaving an outstanding funding gap of around €900m.
Late last week Airbus threatened to start winding down work on the troubled project within days if long-running talks with national buyers do not yield results.
Tom Enders, chief executive, told unions in Spain that he was ready to stop work on the aircraft if no agreement on funding is reached with European governments.
The discussions have already dragged on beyond the January 31 deadline laid down by Airbus.
The A400M is costing EADS between €100m and €150m a month while talks have continued with Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey.
The seven countries have together ordered 180 of the planes.
Airbus has 52,000 employees around Europe with about 10,000 working on the A400M. The plane is designed to carry troops, armoured vehicles and helicopters. It would replace Europe's ageing fleet of transport planes.
"The buyer nations are thereby confirming their firm intention of continuing the A400M project. It's now important to see how the industry will react to the proposals," the ministry spokesman told a news conference.
He added that it has been agreed by the parties to remain silent on the details of the funding plan. The partners have been at odds for months over how to resolve a funding shortfall on the A400M troop carrier.
The €20bn (£17.4bn) project faces estimated losses of €7.6bn, of which EADS has so far pledged to absorb €3.2bn. EADS has asked buyers to share some of the losses to prevent damage to Europe's airliner business and safeguard around 10,000 A400M jobs.
Sources familiar with the talks said in addition to offering to cover €2bn, buyer nations were now prepared to put up guarantees worth €1.5bn, leaving an outstanding funding gap of around €900m.
Late last week Airbus threatened to start winding down work on the troubled project within days if long-running talks with national buyers do not yield results.
Tom Enders, chief executive, told unions in Spain that he was ready to stop work on the aircraft if no agreement on funding is reached with European governments.
The discussions have already dragged on beyond the January 31 deadline laid down by Airbus.
The A400M is costing EADS between €100m and €150m a month while talks have continued with Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey.
The seven countries have together ordered 180 of the planes.
Airbus has 52,000 employees around Europe with about 10,000 working on the A400M. The plane is designed to carry troops, armoured vehicles and helicopters. It would replace Europe's ageing fleet of transport planes.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Did someone say we needed the A400M for it's tactical role, as the C-17 wasn't certified for them?
Well think again...
Airbus May Build Simpler A400M to Speed Introduction, FTD Says
By Benedikt Kammel
Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS is set to build a simpler version of the A400M military transport and initially seek only civil certification of the plane as part of an agreement with the governments involved in the program, Financial Times Deutschland reported, citing unidentified people close to the negotiations...............
Well think again...
Airbus May Build Simpler A400M to Speed Introduction, FTD Says
By Benedikt Kammel
Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS is set to build a simpler version of the A400M military transport and initially seek only civil certification of the plane as part of an agreement with the governments involved in the program, Financial Times Deutschland reported, citing unidentified people close to the negotiations...............
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
PAK-FA analysis and high level advice point to JSF crisis
About now Defence Minister John Faulkner is having tea and biscuits with William Lynn, the deputy secretary of the US Defense Office, who is breaking some awkward news about the JSF Joint Strike Fighter project. Namely, that March is going to be a very difficult month for the troubled project.
But if the Minister had already read the very long and detailed analysis released early this morning by Airpower Australia of the Russian answer to the JSF F-35, the Sukhoi PAK-FA, which made its first ‘public’ flight on January 10, the conversation might have been even more fascinating, and difficult, for Lynn. The analysis has very grim implications for the JSF project.
But first, Lynn and the Defence Secretary Robert Gates are according to sources in DC doing the rounds of JSF client states bringing them up to date over the issues befalling the project in March
The anticipated unfavourable review of the JSF program by the US Government Accountability Office report to Congress next month will trigger the Nunn-McCurdy amendment to the Defence Authorization Act of 1982 which will force the government to get reauthorization to continue its funding because of unit cost overruns.
This embarrassment will occur less than two months after the official audit review into the project by Mike Gilmore, the US Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which lead to the firing of the head of the project and the cancellation of $700 million in ‘progressive’ payments due to be made to the lead contractor, Lockheed Martin, this year.
In their report the co-founders of the Air Power Australia defence think tank, Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon say:
“Analysis of PAK-FA prototype airframe aerodynamic features shows a design which is superior to all Western equivalents, providing ‘extreme agility’, superior to that of the Su-35S, through much of the flight envelope. This is accomplished by the combined use of 3D thrust vector control of the engine nozzles, all moving tail surfaces, and refined aerodynamic design with relaxed directional static stability and careful mass distribution to control inertial effects. The PAK-FA is fitted with unusually robust high sink rate undercarriage, intended for STOL operations.
“The available evidence demonstrates at this time that a mature production PAK-FA design has the potential to compete with the F-22A Raptor in VLO performance from key aspects, and will outperform the F-22A Raptor aerodynamically and kinematically. Therefore, from a technological strategy perspective, the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015."
"Detailed strategic analysis indicates that the only viable strategic survival strategy now remaining for the United States is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter program immediately, redirect freed funding to further develop the F-22 Raptor, and employ variants of the F-22 aircraft as the primary fighter aircraft for all United States and Allied TACAIR needs.”
They warn that, “if the US does not fundamentally change its future for the planning of tactical air power, the advantage held for decades will soon be lost and American air power will become an artefact of history.”..........
About now Defence Minister John Faulkner is having tea and biscuits with William Lynn, the deputy secretary of the US Defense Office, who is breaking some awkward news about the JSF Joint Strike Fighter project. Namely, that March is going to be a very difficult month for the troubled project.
But if the Minister had already read the very long and detailed analysis released early this morning by Airpower Australia of the Russian answer to the JSF F-35, the Sukhoi PAK-FA, which made its first ‘public’ flight on January 10, the conversation might have been even more fascinating, and difficult, for Lynn. The analysis has very grim implications for the JSF project.
But first, Lynn and the Defence Secretary Robert Gates are according to sources in DC doing the rounds of JSF client states bringing them up to date over the issues befalling the project in March
The anticipated unfavourable review of the JSF program by the US Government Accountability Office report to Congress next month will trigger the Nunn-McCurdy amendment to the Defence Authorization Act of 1982 which will force the government to get reauthorization to continue its funding because of unit cost overruns.
This embarrassment will occur less than two months after the official audit review into the project by Mike Gilmore, the US Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which lead to the firing of the head of the project and the cancellation of $700 million in ‘progressive’ payments due to be made to the lead contractor, Lockheed Martin, this year.
In their report the co-founders of the Air Power Australia defence think tank, Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon say:
“Analysis of PAK-FA prototype airframe aerodynamic features shows a design which is superior to all Western equivalents, providing ‘extreme agility’, superior to that of the Su-35S, through much of the flight envelope. This is accomplished by the combined use of 3D thrust vector control of the engine nozzles, all moving tail surfaces, and refined aerodynamic design with relaxed directional static stability and careful mass distribution to control inertial effects. The PAK-FA is fitted with unusually robust high sink rate undercarriage, intended for STOL operations.
“The available evidence demonstrates at this time that a mature production PAK-FA design has the potential to compete with the F-22A Raptor in VLO performance from key aspects, and will outperform the F-22A Raptor aerodynamically and kinematically. Therefore, from a technological strategy perspective, the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015."
"Detailed strategic analysis indicates that the only viable strategic survival strategy now remaining for the United States is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter program immediately, redirect freed funding to further develop the F-22 Raptor, and employ variants of the F-22 aircraft as the primary fighter aircraft for all United States and Allied TACAIR needs.”
They warn that, “if the US does not fundamentally change its future for the planning of tactical air power, the advantage held for decades will soon be lost and American air power will become an artefact of history.”..........
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wagnerian ...
So it's not "fat lady time" yet ... Offstage a chorus of DefMinions has sung, but only the few have been able to hear the words: onstage, the protagonists are huddled, deciding what their next bit is to be ("Cor Dammerung " ?) Perhaps it's to be a short duet, followed by Exeunt omnes to alarums and trumpets. Suspenseful, like Bayreuth, though an old phrase about jokes and pantomimes lurks in the dark bits of the mind.
In the distance, the writers of the next Act (called "March Financial Report") are getting restive, as there's a big bit they don't know what or whether to write. And the Fat Lady still waits in the wings for her cue, while the object of affections (?) stays grounded ... (no aspersions cast on the A400's shape).
In the distance, the writers of the next Act (called "March Financial Report") are getting restive, as there's a big bit they don't know what or whether to write. And the Fat Lady still waits in the wings for her cue, while the object of affections (?) stays grounded ... (no aspersions cast on the A400's shape).
Champagne anyone...?
So it's not "fat lady time" yet ... Offstage a chorus of DefMinions has sung, but only the few have been able to hear the words: onstage, the protagonists are huddled, deciding what their next bit is to be ("Cor Dammerung " ?) Perhaps it's to be a short duet, followed by Exeunt omnes to alarums and trumpets. Suspenseful, like Bayreuth, though an old phrase about jokes and pantomimes lurks in the dark bits of the mind.
In the distance, the writers of the next Act (called "March Financial Report") are getting restive, as there's a big bit they don't know what or whether to write. And the Fat Lady still waits in the wings for her cue, while the object of affections (?) stays grounded ... (no aspersions cast on the A400's shape)
In the distance, the writers of the next Act (called "March Financial Report") are getting restive, as there's a big bit they don't know what or whether to write. And the Fat Lady still waits in the wings for her cue, while the object of affections (?) stays grounded ... (no aspersions cast on the A400's shape)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
FT: Governments put 'final' offer to EADS over A400M
European governments have demanded a share in any future export profits from the troubled A400M military transport programme in return for providing a €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package.
The seven customers - France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey - who have pledged to buy 180 of the turboprop aircraft yesterday delivered their "final and best" offer to EADS, parent of the A400m's maker, Airbus.
In a letter sent by Rüdiger Wolf, German junior minister for defence procurement on behalf of all the client states, the governments agreed to offer €1.5bn in advance payments in return for the promise of a share in future export profits. A further €2bn in support will be made up of a combination of cash and cost cuts to the programme. The governments have also indicated that they would be prepared to talk about absorbing future price rises caused by external factors, such as increased raw material costs.
The €3.5bn package still falls short of the €5.2bn funding gap identified by EADS on the programme, one of Europe's largest defence projects. It is already running four years behind schedule and some €11bn over its initial €20bn estimate.
The future export potential of the aircraft is also unclear as it faces competition from successful US programmes - Lockheed Martin's C-130 Hercules and Boeing C-17s. The future of the C-17 programme is, however, in some doubt after the Pentagon recently halted further orders for the aircraft. Boeing must find export markets to keep the line open.
EADS was last night examining the offer and people close to the talks suggested it could be accepted if the governments accepted a few further changes "at the margins". EADS is reluctant to accept any further large writedowns on the fixed price contract, which could wipe out its profit for 2009. EADS has already taken a €2.4bn provision against the programme. The current offer could leave the group facing further provisions of about €1.7bn or more, against profits forecasts of roughly €2bn.
An announcement, at least on an agreement in principle, is expected in the coming days. EADS is under pressure to agree a deal before it closes its accounts ahead of its results next month.
Defence procurement ministers from the customer governments are due to meet with company representatives later this week.
European governments have demanded a share in any future export profits from the troubled A400M military transport programme in return for providing a €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package.
The seven customers - France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey - who have pledged to buy 180 of the turboprop aircraft yesterday delivered their "final and best" offer to EADS, parent of the A400m's maker, Airbus.
In a letter sent by Rüdiger Wolf, German junior minister for defence procurement on behalf of all the client states, the governments agreed to offer €1.5bn in advance payments in return for the promise of a share in future export profits. A further €2bn in support will be made up of a combination of cash and cost cuts to the programme. The governments have also indicated that they would be prepared to talk about absorbing future price rises caused by external factors, such as increased raw material costs.
The €3.5bn package still falls short of the €5.2bn funding gap identified by EADS on the programme, one of Europe's largest defence projects. It is already running four years behind schedule and some €11bn over its initial €20bn estimate.
The future export potential of the aircraft is also unclear as it faces competition from successful US programmes - Lockheed Martin's C-130 Hercules and Boeing C-17s. The future of the C-17 programme is, however, in some doubt after the Pentagon recently halted further orders for the aircraft. Boeing must find export markets to keep the line open.
EADS was last night examining the offer and people close to the talks suggested it could be accepted if the governments accepted a few further changes "at the margins". EADS is reluctant to accept any further large writedowns on the fixed price contract, which could wipe out its profit for 2009. EADS has already taken a €2.4bn provision against the programme. The current offer could leave the group facing further provisions of about €1.7bn or more, against profits forecasts of roughly €2bn.
An announcement, at least on an agreement in principle, is expected in the coming days. EADS is under pressure to agree a deal before it closes its accounts ahead of its results next month.
Defence procurement ministers from the customer governments are due to meet with company representatives later this week.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST (Ares): JSF - 13-Month Delay Is Official
Two official sources have now confirmed that initial operational test and evaluation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be completed before November 2015, 13 months later than the previous schedule. That schedule itself was adopted less than two years ago, in early 2008, so the program has now slipped two years in five since 2005, when the previous schedule was set.
So much for the "four to six months" we've been hearing from Lockheed Martin.
Dutch state secretary of defense Jack de Vries notified Parliament of the delay yesterday. Also, US deputy secretary of defense William Lynn told Australian audiences early this week that the program would be 13 months late. He's also reported as saying that the delay would have been 30 months - with testing dragging on until early 2017 - without the latest corrective measures, transferring money from production to development.
Lynn also told the Australians that the production price had gone up, but that he could not say by how much. De Vries, meanwhile, has told Dutch lawmakers that he will get them a revised price by May, after the Pentagon releases the Selected Acquisitions Report (SAR) on the JSF - which is expected to result in a Nunn-McCurdy critical breach, which in turn will delay the contract for the next low-rate initial production batch of aircraft.
Next question for the Pentagon: will the US services still hold their initial operational capability (IOC) dates? All three operators, under the new schedule, will be declaring IOC before development is completed.
Two official sources have now confirmed that initial operational test and evaluation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be completed before November 2015, 13 months later than the previous schedule. That schedule itself was adopted less than two years ago, in early 2008, so the program has now slipped two years in five since 2005, when the previous schedule was set.
So much for the "four to six months" we've been hearing from Lockheed Martin.
Dutch state secretary of defense Jack de Vries notified Parliament of the delay yesterday. Also, US deputy secretary of defense William Lynn told Australian audiences early this week that the program would be 13 months late. He's also reported as saying that the delay would have been 30 months - with testing dragging on until early 2017 - without the latest corrective measures, transferring money from production to development.
Lynn also told the Australians that the production price had gone up, but that he could not say by how much. De Vries, meanwhile, has told Dutch lawmakers that he will get them a revised price by May, after the Pentagon releases the Selected Acquisitions Report (SAR) on the JSF - which is expected to result in a Nunn-McCurdy critical breach, which in turn will delay the contract for the next low-rate initial production batch of aircraft.
Next question for the Pentagon: will the US services still hold their initial operational capability (IOC) dates? All three operators, under the new schedule, will be declaring IOC before development is completed.