The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week

Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
JSF In The Dock
A critical hearing on JSF is under way on Capitol Hill, with an openly frustrated Sen John McCain and Senate Armed Services Committee chair Sen Carl Levin introducing the proceedings by recalling the optimism expressed by Defense Secretary Gates back in August. "it's a bit frustrating to hear the Secretary tell us that everything is OK," McCain said, "and then read in media reports that it's not."

So far, GAO printed testimony and comments by director of cost assessment and program evaluation Christine Fox have detailed the cost increases in the program.

GAO numbers show that in then-year dollars, the average procurement cost - fully equipped aircraft, spares and overhead - and program acquisition cost, including R&D, have both increased by some 62 per cent since the project started in October 2001 - handsomely exceeding the 50 per cent threshold for the Nunn-McCurdy breach. Indeed, the average procurement cost has jumped from $95 million to $112 million - 18 per cent - since March 2007.

By the way, maybe Lockheed Martin will stop using silly numbers in public now:

blog post photo
JSF Fast Facts

The GAO is skeptical about the manufacturing program and notes that - even under the revised program - the DoD will have ordered 307 aircraft through 2014, before development testing is completed (now expected in November 2014).

McCain, in his first question for Fox, asked directly whether increased unit costs would result in lower production numbers - Fox had quoted the C-17 and F-22. "This will result in dramatically higher unit production numbers if precedent holds true." So far, though, nobody's making this connection on the record.

blog post photo
Ashton Carter tells the SASC about the fish he caught last weekend

Procurement chief Ashton Carter is blaming the increases on a number of factors:  overruns in development costs of the STOVL aircraft, "degradation of commonality" and higher labor and overhead rates. Carter is also telling South Dakota Sen. John Thune that the question of operating costs - the program still claims lower operating costs than today's fighters - is being investigated, as the DoD works in anticipation of the formal Nunn-McCurdy breach.

Sen Joe Lieberman is predictably taking the opportunity to rubbish the F136 alternate engine. One important response from Fox: the much touted $2.9 billion to build the F136 includes spares. So the F135s that would be acquired instead don't use spares? If that's so we should buy a lot more of them.


Dr Carter: it was Edison, not Einstein, who said that genius is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration. Update: Levin corrects him.

The GAO's Michael Sullivan tells Sen Saxby Chambliss that cutting the slip in the program from 30 to 13 months is "optimistic" and that software "will be the long pole in the tent". Chambliss asks Carter why it took the DoD so long to validate the first JET report. "It came a year later and said that it had been going on for two years, not one year," Carter says, adding that he "became aware of the JET report soon after I took this position". (He clearly wasn't reading this blog.)

Chambliss returns to the attack on the F-22 issue, noting that the F-35 is now within $28 million of the F-22 cost, according to the GAO:  $112 million average procurement, versus $140 million, and wants to know why the Senate wasn't told about this during the debate over the termination of the F-22. "I can't talk about that, since I wasn't in office at the time."

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Super Hornet) asks where Navy and other tactical aircraft shortfalls stand now, and there's no current answer. But Carter opens the door to another Hornet/Growler multiyear purchase, as long as savings "are in the teens". Good news for Boeing.

"With all due respect, I hate to say 'I told you so'," McCaskill says. Indeed. She's also asking whose fault it is, and Carter takes blame on the government side. "It's our job to tell the truth, not an optimistic story, and that has not always been done," Carter says. (Damn right, sir. - Ed.).
Tags: jsfgaonunn-mccurdy
Email this post
User Image
Solomon wrote:
Bill said...
Indeed, the average procurement cost has jumped from $95 million to $112 million - 18 per cent - since March 2007.

I don't understand the critique of the cost. Its still cheaper than the F-22 by a large margin, its still equal to the cost of a new build F-15K.

This program has many issues. There is no denying that but this is development cost, not full rate ---the same argument used in debating the F-22.
3/11/2010 12:03 PM CST
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
It's a pretty rapid convergence, particularly given the production rates: the last 24 F-22s cost $180 million each. Of course, you have to caveat that the F-35A is less costly than the B and C, which are rolled into the $112 million average - but then the F-22 number is real!
3/11/2010 12:16 PM CST
User Image
Robert Wall wrote:
Also interesting to hear the OT&E director call the remaining level of concurrency in testing: "unprecedented."
3/11/2010 12:21 PM CST
User Image
jbierling wrote:
I predict that the F-22 would have been cheaper than the F-35 will be given the same production rates.
3/11/2010 12:40 PM CST
User Image
Solomon wrote:
That makes no sense. The F-35 will outnumber the F-22. Its already being produced at a faster rate than the F-22.

Lockheed Martin has screwed up. Big Time! The DoD didn't exercise proper oversight of the contractor.

But to say that the F-22 would be cheaper than the F-35 is nonsense.

3/11/2010 1:26 PM CST
User Image
Horde wrote:
Hi Sol,

Back in 2004, APA predicted the F-35A JSF would cost as much, if not more, than the F-22A on a per unit basis. This advice was based on risk based parametric analyses and later confirmed through risk based ordinal analysis (i.e. standard cost modelling).

The results of these analyses were provided to senior officials in both the Australian Dept of Defence, including ACM Angus Houston, and the Defence Materiel Organisation such as AVM John Harvey and Dr Steve Gumley AO, as well as a Joint Standing Committee and the Senate Estimates Committee of the Australia Parliament.

All this information has been up on the Air Power Australia web site for years.

Apart from being around three times more capable than the F-35A JSF will ever be, the F-22A and its production numbers have yet to get around the 'knee' of the production learning curve.

Since the F-22A is already in a form of "full rate production", increasing the production numbers will provide the economies of scale to pull the production costs and, thus, the 'per unit costs' down, just as is being claimed for the JSF Program.

According to APA modelling, an additional 100 x F-22A aircraft production should see the average unit flyaway cost (UFC) across an additional 100 aircraft build come in at around US$116 million per aircraft.

Remember, the original target average UFC for the F-22 Program was around US$50 million in 1991 dollars.

This is based on the data and the facts.

I hope this helps. This is not nonsense.
3/11/2010 2:09 PM CST
User Image
ELP wrote:
What is being built at "a faster rate" are a bunch of mistake-jets because there isn't enough flight testing (including real mission systems aircraft) to back up what they are building.
3/11/2010 2:17 PM CST
User Image
Horde wrote:
F-22A production has been running at around 20 jets per year for the past 4 years, including under the MYP.

Any claim that the JSF Program is running at "a faster rate" is one of the many logical fallacies (e.g. non-sequitur) which are the basis of this just-so-flawed JSF Program.

Time for America to wake up!

America, you are being duped and, in the process, you are allowing your allies to also be mislead.

Does this sound at all familiar?

GFC, anyone?

3/11/2010 2:40 PM CST
User Image
Horde wrote:
IIRC, the F-22A production line was supposed to be able to produce some 40 x jets per year, giving the tooling that had been purchased.

Suggest it would not take much effort to get up to this rate.

Also, there is a rather fancy production line over there at Ft Worth and a whole bunch of really neat production technology that has been purchased which is likely going to be sitting idle for a while, if not forever.

Time to re-group and re-think the whole TacAir thingy, Ladies and Gentlemen!

3/11/2010 2:46 PM CST
User Image
MCQkngiht wrote:
@Solomon

What jbierling was trying to say is that if they built as many F-22s as F-35's, the unit cost would be cheaper, which is true. Given that the per unit cost of the F-22 is quoted at $140 million/plane with 180 aircraft, and the F-35 is quoted at $112 million/plane with 2,500 aircraft, any reduction in F-35 purchases will likely drive costs above the F-22 unit price.

They should just restart F-22 production immediately before it's too late.
3/11/2010 2:48 PM CST
1 2 3 4 >> Last
JSF In The Dock
    - Advertisement -
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Selected Videos
    - Advertisement -