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
GAO Reports on JSF

The most amazing item in the new GAO report on the Joint Strike Fighter is that someone in the Pentagon is seriously planning to accelerate deliveries, adding a total of 169 aircraft to early low-rate initial production blocks.

People! The JSF program office itself has said that the program’s going to face difficulties accelerating production and staying on budget. The GAO report makes it clear that the program did not stay on its cost track in 2008, with continuing manufacturing issues. Building more aircraft on a stable cost base is good, and reduces unit costs. Building more aircraft on an already overstressed production line is bad.  

Whose cockamamie idea this is, the GAO does not make clear, but the goal is apparently to accelerate recapitalization of the fighter force;  more to the point, it probably represents an attempt by the JSF’s high-level supporters to forestall moves by the USAF and Navy to extend the F-22 and F/A-18 lines.

In any event, the GAO estimates that it will add $33.4 billion to the low-rate initial production bill, or $197 million per aircraft. Hopefully, it’s a non-starter in today’s climate.

Last year’s GAO report, we’ll recall, predicted delays and overruns in the JSF program. It was promptly and publicly pooh-poohed by the JSF team, despite the fact that they were already working on a one-year slip to the test program. So the GAO’s credibility as far as JSF is concerned is pretty good.

The GAO now congratulates the JSF team on its one-year slip – with operational testing of the Block 3 software, the initial service standard, due to be completed in October 2014. However, the report details the conclusions of the Pentagon’s Joint Estimating Team (JET), which predicts that development will cost $5 billion more than projected – a total of $51.8 billion – and will not be completed until October 2016.

Both the JET and the GAO think that the JSF office is optimistic about flight testing and software development. The GAO notes that the JSF team plans to validate only 17 per cent of the fighter’s capabilities in flight, and 83 per cent through laboratories, on the CATBird flying test bed and by analysis.

blog post photo

The JET, meanwhile, expects that the JSF program will need 2700 flight test hours for its mission systems, versus the planned 1700 hours.

The GAO’s investigation, too, shows how the program plans to reach its flight-test goals, with a profile of development test flights (only a portion of total test flights, which include operational tests) through 2013, when developmental testing is supposed to be completed.

blog post photo

We’ll see about that. It might be pointed out that in just over two weeks we will be half-way through FY2009, and there certainly haven’t been 150-plus sorties (half the FY09 goal) flown.

Accelerate the program? As the classic story of trying to meet schedule under pressure puts it:

He looked 'round and said to his black greasy fireman,
"Just shovel in a little more coal,
And when I cross that old White Oak Mountain
You can just watch Old 97 roll."

That ended well, as I recall.

Tags: ar99jsfgao
Email this post
User Image
viperfan wrote:
$51.8 development cost ? I am lost for words.
3/13/2009 11:20 AM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
You might want to compare that to the developement cost of the B-2 & F-22 in 2009 dollars. Also consider that $2 billion + is for the F136 that nobody wants except the UK and a few self-serving politicians in the US.
3/13/2009 11:43 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Next great slogan: Development cost is less than the B-2! And I would really look very hard at the thrust/thermal situation before making sweeping comments about the F136.
3/13/2009 11:45 AM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
I'm saying that R&D on something like the F-35 ain't gonna come cheap, it's simply the nature of what they're trying to achieve with it. As for the F136 the DoD has said repeatedly they don't want it. Yet guess who's budget it's coming out of?
3/13/2009 11:51 AM CDT
User Image
ghemago wrote:
Bill, do you have at hands any number about the B-2 and F-22 development costs? Could it be a surprise like the "double range"?
3/13/2009 12:11 PM CDT
User Image
Slider wrote:
Maybe it's me, a Brit, an outsider, looking in at 'Alice in Wonderland through the Looking Glass' but how on earth does the Pentagon procure weapons with all these different dates, costs, capabilities, conflicting reports and figures. Seems like everyone has a finger in the pie and the Pentagon is LM and Boeings personal bank, who has the ultimate yes or no? The President or Lt Col No Name in the Pentagon.

Now I know the UK MOD is no angel but F-35 shenanigans takes the biscuit.

Testing of the F-35 is not due to be completed until 2013....or 2016 whichever you chose to believe and yet everyone is rushing to get on the F-35 bandwagon.

Some snippets from the UK, RAF pilots cannot understand what the obsession is with F-35B being overweight, over cost, short on weapons carrying capability and short on range. Also STOVL has not been seriously used since the Falklands War so why continue with it?

Another, albeit non JSF item, reportedly, RAF aircrew of the R1, when told that the Nimrod R1 ELINT aircraft was to be replaced by Rivet Joint was greeted with hoots of derision and disgust to the chagrin of the briefing Air Officer, Nimrod R1 is a 'gold plated' ELINT platform and simply the best and far superior to the RC-135 in all respects.

Here endeth my piece, may common sense and truth appear in the F-35 market place.
3/13/2009 1:44 PM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
GAO in 1997 gave the B-2 development bill as $24.7 billion in then-year dollars. Updating that to 2009 dollars would have to be done year-by-year, but it would be a lot higher. GAO in 2006 gave the F-22 development bill as $32.9 billion in 06 dollars, or $35 billion today.
3/13/2009 1:58 PM CDT
User Image
viperfan wrote:
sferrin

"I'm saying that R&D on something like the F-35 ain't gonna come cheap, it's simply the nature of what they're trying to achieve with it."

What's so difficult? I'll give you the VTOL yes that is tricky but to some extent demonstrated by the x-35. Then what? avionics? I can't see why it would be that much more costly then gen 4.x jets given earned value all subcontractors gained from programs like Super hornet BII, F16 B60, F22.

The engine? Often said to be low risk and reliable because it builds on a existing product. fan blades made of gold?

The twin seat version... oh right, there is none.

The advanced stealth tvc nozzle.. nope.

The super advanced bomb bays and launchers obviously not drawn from the F-22 experience... yeah?

Just what is costing so much ? It's just a single engine single seat jet for gods sake.
3/13/2009 3:12 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
GAO reported that in 1997 dollars the total fly away costs of the B-2 to be 929 MILLION dollars.

Northrup Grumman offered the USAF a chance to purchase additional aircraft at the low cost :)) of 566 MILLION dollars.
3/13/2009 4:20 PM CDT
User Image
ELP wrote:
One of many interesting points in that report is a graph that shows percent of fly test complete by year...

2010 is 9 percent

2011 is 34 percent

2012 is 65 percent

Given all of the other work that is due, jumps like that are going to be an interesting trick.

The software alone will be interesting too. The F-35 has around 3.4 times more software code in it than an F-22.

I agree with Sferrin -"I'm saying that R&D on something like the F-35 ain't gonna come cheap, it's simply the nature of what they're trying to achieve with it."

Somebody should inform General Davis, General Heinz, Tom Burbage et al of that when they sing hype and spin.
3/13/2009 4:31 PM CDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 >> Last
GAO Reports on JSF
    - Advertisement -
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos
    - Advertisement -