F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Awarding a company a government-funded monopoly leads to higher prices? Goldernit, who would have guessed that?
Why is the F135 lobby so desperate? One possibility: they need to get the alternate engine dead and buried before they stick the Pentagon with the real bill for the engine.
JSF Engine "Competition" Story Rises From The Grave
Here's another question: What happens when the Super Hornet line closes and the F-35 itself becomes a monopoly?
Why is the F135 lobby so desperate? One possibility: they need to get the alternate engine dead and buried before they stick the Pentagon with the real bill for the engine.
JSF Engine "Competition" Story Rises From The Grave
Here's another question: What happens when the Super Hornet line closes and the F-35 itself becomes a monopoly?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Here's another question: What happens when the Super Hornet line closes and the F-35 itself becomes a monopoly?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
Another major planning and procurement lesson not learned from the early days of the F-15 & F-16 programs when Pratt was sole engine source. The "Great Engine War" with GE fixed the engine problem both technically and cost-wise. We have somehow managed to have all the world's stupidest planners and procurers assembled in one location, the Pentagon.
TD
......Bogdan seems frustrated by the lack of leverage he has in dealing with a monopoly engine provider. “There is only one engine on the F-35. Period,” he said. “When you are in a sole source environment it is difficult to find the right leverage and motivation and drive the cost out of a program.”........
TD
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Turbine D
We have somehow managed to have all the world's stupidest planners and procurers assembled in one location, the Pentagon...
-RP
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern Apprenticeship
RP surely our friends in Whitehall are doing an apprenticeship under the tutelage of our cousinsat the Pentagon? One day they will rise to the same level of wastage management....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The euthanasia of the FET engine (F-136) was driven by many on 'the Hill' (lobbyists?) and Pentagon but not the Program Office. In fact, at the time the whole second engine debate was going on, the incumbent Program Executive Officer was vehemently against removing it. He cited reliability examples of the early F-16 engine, faults and issues with the AV-8 sole engine provider etc as clear reasons to maintain a parallel development option to mitigate the discovery of 'issues' in development and the potential grounding of an entire fleet of 'air vehicles' when fielded. The FET worked for 15 years to develop F-136 and was 80% complete when it was axed; in many respects it had advantages over the P&W F-135 engine. Taking the law of (un)intended consequences to one side for a moment, the decision to remove the F-136 will, ultimately, prove to be the wrong one imho. Pratt & Witney now have 12+ customers (governments) over a barrel. Without the F-136 there is nothing to meaningfully hold P&W's feet to the fire over cost, schedule or performance.
To quote HASC Chairman Buck McKeon: “I had hoped that the GE / Rolls-Royce competitive engine could be a model for government-industry partnership to drive down the cost of important weapons systems. As our military faces a dramatic decline in their budgets in the near term, this is just the beginning of the wave of cost-cutting decisions that both the military and industry will have to make”.
To quote HASC Chairman Buck McKeon: “I had hoped that the GE / Rolls-Royce competitive engine could be a model for government-industry partnership to drive down the cost of important weapons systems. As our military faces a dramatic decline in their budgets in the near term, this is just the beginning of the wave of cost-cutting decisions that both the military and industry will have to make”.
MSOCS - Interesting. The engine war covered a couple of PMs and I never heard of any resistance there.
The primary reason for the scrapping of the F136 was to offset the out-of-control overruns in the air vehicle and F135. However, the first attempts were reversed by Congress.
P&W then weighed in with a staggeringly mendacious lobbying campaign, repeatedly claiming that they had been selected competitively and that GE had lobbied its way on to the program. JSFPO could have at least disputed that, but they did not.
Most of the media was also AWOL, covering the dispute as "he said, she said, so the truth must be somewhere in between." Trouble is, that approach favors the side that tells the bigger porkies.
The primary reason for the scrapping of the F136 was to offset the out-of-control overruns in the air vehicle and F135. However, the first attempts were reversed by Congress.
P&W then weighed in with a staggeringly mendacious lobbying campaign, repeatedly claiming that they had been selected competitively and that GE had lobbied its way on to the program. JSFPO could have at least disputed that, but they did not.
Most of the media was also AWOL, covering the dispute as "he said, she said, so the truth must be somewhere in between." Trouble is, that approach favors the side that tells the bigger porkies.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was very aware that lobbying was the major contributor, plus Tea Party politics, but I can assure you I heard the words directly from the [then] PEO's mouth!
Politics is stronger than any combination of rank/experience/wisdom imho. The sooner one realises it the quicker one ascends the ranks but at what cost to reality?
I do so very much prefer the Kelly Johnson school of aircraft development!
Politics is stronger than any combination of rank/experience/wisdom imho. The sooner one realises it the quicker one ascends the ranks but at what cost to reality?
I do so very much prefer the Kelly Johnson school of aircraft development!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 848
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Background
Having been only lurking on this thread, prudence might dictate I should keep it that way, but generally speaking posters on the thread appear to know quite deep and extensive stuff about the F-35 program. So, I'd like to ask a question. The only contextual condition is that I'm not a complete cynic (my oath of license to practice the profession of attorney at law absolutely bars one from lying to a court (among other prohibitions) and so too, in public advocacy, there is a duty of candor).
Suppose someone with no axe to grind, other than wanting to find the facts in the most objectively reasonable fashion within his or her ability, set out upon the task of studying and ultimately mastering the facts, issues and controversies of the F-35 program. What sources would you recommend such a person read?
As an exemplar of objective analysis, you may be acquainted with the work of US lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, to whom apportionment of common fund awards has been entrusted (such as to victims of the September the Eleventh attacks). As an exemplar of a reason to think such an objective analysis could exist in the real world, certainly many are aware that the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is retiring, so, as of the convening of the next Congress, it is at least possible that there would be a New Kid in Town.
Suppose someone with no axe to grind, other than wanting to find the facts in the most objectively reasonable fashion within his or her ability, set out upon the task of studying and ultimately mastering the facts, issues and controversies of the F-35 program. What sources would you recommend such a person read?
As an exemplar of objective analysis, you may be acquainted with the work of US lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, to whom apportionment of common fund awards has been entrusted (such as to victims of the September the Eleventh attacks). As an exemplar of a reason to think such an objective analysis could exist in the real world, certainly many are aware that the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is retiring, so, as of the convening of the next Congress, it is at least possible that there would be a New Kid in Town.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 19th Apr 2014 at 16:38. Reason: Typo
A bit of history:
Before any contract was awarded on JSF - in 1996 - there was a plan to fund two engines all the way through the program. Because P&W already had the F119 in EMD, and the JSF engine was expected to build on F119, it was a leader-follower arrangement whereby P&W supported the X-plane program and the development aircraft, and GE/RR designed a new-centerline engine on a later schedule, but would be ready for full-rate production.
See this: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/t...nscriptid=3814
In 1996 a lot of people remembered how the Great Engine War went - the F100 failed repeatedly and P&W somehow could not get it fixed until the GE F110 was real and snapping at their heels. But after that the AF found it had two good engines. The Navy, too, hated the F-14's TF30 and was not happy about a single-P&W-engine JSF.
I'm not sure that GE ever really pitched an engine for any of the three X-plane designs. McD/NG/BAE's whole point was that their engine could use a stock F119; for either of the other designs the existence of the F119 gave P&W an advantage. So there was no real competition there either.
But much of the story had been forgotten ten years later, so P&W's fairy tale - that the F136 had been a pork-barrel project from the outset - was sold quite successfully.
Before any contract was awarded on JSF - in 1996 - there was a plan to fund two engines all the way through the program. Because P&W already had the F119 in EMD, and the JSF engine was expected to build on F119, it was a leader-follower arrangement whereby P&W supported the X-plane program and the development aircraft, and GE/RR designed a new-centerline engine on a later schedule, but would be ready for full-rate production.
See this: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/t...nscriptid=3814
In 1996 a lot of people remembered how the Great Engine War went - the F100 failed repeatedly and P&W somehow could not get it fixed until the GE F110 was real and snapping at their heels. But after that the AF found it had two good engines. The Navy, too, hated the F-14's TF30 and was not happy about a single-P&W-engine JSF.
I'm not sure that GE ever really pitched an engine for any of the three X-plane designs. McD/NG/BAE's whole point was that their engine could use a stock F119; for either of the other designs the existence of the F119 gave P&W an advantage. So there was no real competition there either.
But much of the story had been forgotten ten years later, so P&W's fairy tale - that the F136 had been a pork-barrel project from the outset - was sold quite successfully.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO
In the late 1980s early 1990s, the GE YF120 engine competed directly against the PW YF119 engine for what was then the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program which became the F-22 Raptor. Both engines were funded during the development stages. Pratt's engine won the competition in the end. This was only after P&W made it known to Congress and the Pentagon that if they lost this competition they would shutter (close down) their military engine operation outside of West Palm Beach, Florida and manage what was left of their military engine business from East Hartford, Connecticut. At that time there really wasn't much left of their military engine business, only what they were able to competitively win internationally on the F-16, F-15 and as sole source on the USAF C-17 program. The GE /Rolls Royce F136 engine built on the technology gained from the YF120 engine plus what Rolls Royce brought to the table.
IMHO, what has happened to create the single source engine scenario for the F-35 was the cost overruns and subsequent cancellation of the F-22 Raptor program after only 200 some aircraft being produced.
TD
Before any contract was awarded on JSF - in 1996 - there was a plan to fund two engines all the way through the program. Because P&W already had the F119 in EMD, and the JSF engine was expected to build on F119, it was a leader-follower arrangement whereby P&W supported the X-plane program and the development aircraft, and GE/RR designed a new-centerline engine on a later schedule, but would be ready for full-rate production.
IMHO, what has happened to create the single source engine scenario for the F-35 was the cost overruns and subsequent cancellation of the F-22 Raptor program after only 200 some aircraft being produced.
TD
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Federal Government to announce purchase of 72 stealth fighter jets for RAAF 23 Apr 2014 Ian McPhedran
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
“THE Abbott Government will purchase 72 [total for time being perhaps] advanced American-built stealth fighter jets to spearhead the nation’s defence for the next half century.
The $12.4 billion through-life outlay, to be announced in Canberra today by the Prime Minsiter, is the biggest defence purchase in Australian history and includes every aspect of the system from hangars to missiles.
The so-called “fifth generation” JF-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) planes will be deployed in three operational squadrons and a training squadron based at RAAF Williamtown near Newcastle in NSW and RAAF Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory.
About $1.6 billion will be spent on new facilities at the air force bases....
...The government has already ordered 14 planes and another 58 will be added, taking the total to 72 with the option of another 24 further down the track.
They will enter service from 2018 and will serve alongside 24 Super Hornet fighters already in service with the RAAF.
The jets will replace the RAAF’s fleet of ageing F/A-18 Classic Hornet fighters that will retire by 2022....”
The $12.4 billion through-life outlay, to be announced in Canberra today by the Prime Minsiter, is the biggest defence purchase in Australian history and includes every aspect of the system from hangars to missiles.
The so-called “fifth generation” JF-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) planes will be deployed in three operational squadrons and a training squadron based at RAAF Williamtown near Newcastle in NSW and RAAF Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory.
About $1.6 billion will be spent on new facilities at the air force bases....
...The government has already ordered 14 planes and another 58 will be added, taking the total to 72 with the option of another 24 further down the track.
They will enter service from 2018 and will serve alongside 24 Super Hornet fighters already in service with the RAAF.
The jets will replace the RAAF’s fleet of ageing F/A-18 Classic Hornet fighters that will retire by 2022....”
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 22nd Apr 2014 at 19:38. Reason: errantquot
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
SAR F-35 as of Dec 2013 Published April 2014
As usual only a couple of good bits from the latest SAR - best to download and read it all for the good, the bad and the ugly.... 
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Dec 2013
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget
http://www.scribd.com/document_downl...?extension=pdf (0.7Mb)
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Dec 2013
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget
http://www.scribd.com/document_downl...?extension=pdf (0.7Mb)
Executive Summary...
"...The F-35 program continues to make slow but steady progress and is moving forward in a disciplined manner. There were many successes as well as challenges in 2013. Successes include: signing the restructured SDD contract modification; completing the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to terminate development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); completing the 2nd F-35B Ship-Trial period (DT-II) operations on U.S. Ship WASP, accomplishing 95 Vertical Landings and 94 Short Takeoffs, with 19 night takeoffs; rolling-out the 100th aircraft from the production facility at Fort Worth, Texas; and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Lightning Protection and Fuel Dump...."
&
“...One critical challenge the program made head way on in 2013 was the HMDS. For more than two years, the program worked with industry teammates to conduct dedicated flight tests and develop solutions to address the helmet's technical challenges. Those issues that hampered helmet function have been resolved, and the unit cost of the helmet system has decreased. As a result of testing and mitigation of the HMDS issues, the parallel development of an alternate helmet has been terminated. The current helmet has been deemed acceptable to support USMC IOC in 2015, and the Generation 3 helmet - to be introduced to the fleet in LRIP Lot 7 in 2016 - will meet program requirements to complete test and development in 2017. The Generation 3 helmet will include an improved night vision camera, new Liquid-Crystal Displays, automated alignment, and software improvements. The downselect to the current HMDS also resulted in a price guarantee that reduced the overall cost of the HMDS by 13 percent for the next five years...."
"...The F-35 program continues to make slow but steady progress and is moving forward in a disciplined manner. There were many successes as well as challenges in 2013. Successes include: signing the restructured SDD contract modification; completing the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to terminate development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); completing the 2nd F-35B Ship-Trial period (DT-II) operations on U.S. Ship WASP, accomplishing 95 Vertical Landings and 94 Short Takeoffs, with 19 night takeoffs; rolling-out the 100th aircraft from the production facility at Fort Worth, Texas; and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Lightning Protection and Fuel Dump...."
&
“...One critical challenge the program made head way on in 2013 was the HMDS. For more than two years, the program worked with industry teammates to conduct dedicated flight tests and develop solutions to address the helmet's technical challenges. Those issues that hampered helmet function have been resolved, and the unit cost of the helmet system has decreased. As a result of testing and mitigation of the HMDS issues, the parallel development of an alternate helmet has been terminated. The current helmet has been deemed acceptable to support USMC IOC in 2015, and the Generation 3 helmet - to be introduced to the fleet in LRIP Lot 7 in 2016 - will meet program requirements to complete test and development in 2017. The Generation 3 helmet will include an improved night vision camera, new Liquid-Crystal Displays, automated alignment, and software improvements. The downselect to the current HMDS also resulted in a price guarantee that reduced the overall cost of the HMDS by 13 percent for the next five years...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 22nd Apr 2014 at 22:32. Reason: whocares
Interesting point in the SAR on cost per flight hour...
2011 - SAR reports CPFH of $32K/hr vs $22k for mostly->20-year-old F-16s, Lockmart goes ballistic, says auditors incapable of locating own fundaments without both hands, a flashlight and a search warrant &c, says cost is F-16 + 12 per cent, tops.
2014 - CPFH still $32k, based on operational experience.
By the way, that's the A model, without added 20 MW driveshaft and clutch and all the other STOVL paraphernalia.
2011 - SAR reports CPFH of $32K/hr vs $22k for mostly->20-year-old F-16s, Lockmart goes ballistic, says auditors incapable of locating own fundaments without both hands, a flashlight and a search warrant &c, says cost is F-16 + 12 per cent, tops.
2014 - CPFH still $32k, based on operational experience.
By the way, that's the A model, without added 20 MW driveshaft and clutch and all the other STOVL paraphernalia.
They better not cancel it>>>
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Not a bad little Air Force
72 x F-35A, 24 x F/A-18F, 12 x EA-18G....
PS: Don't forget the P-8'sx 8 [+4] and Tritons..
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Not a bad little Air Force
72 x F-35A, 24 x F/A-18F, 12 x EA-18G....
PS: Don't forget the P-8'sx 8 [+4] and Tritons..