My colleague Colin Clark reports from the Hill today where chief Pentagon weapons buyer Ashton Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Joint Strike Fighter now costs 50 percent more than it did in 2002 and that it will breach the Nunn-McCurdy cost limits in a few days. Carter said the cost spike was “unacceptable.” but didn’t lay out any specifics on how the Pentagon intends to control those costs.
Instead of paying $50 million for each JSF, the Pentagon must now shell out $95 million per aircraft, said Christine Fox, director of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, at the same hearing. So, if the per unit cost has doubled, does that mean the military will be forced to cut in half their planned buy of 2,456 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marines?
– Greg
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Is the 95 mill figure with or without the research and development cost figured into it?
Scrap the entire thing and make Lockheed pay us back they fubared themselves.
@Brandon
No kidding. I don't even understand why we need this fighter. It will probably be the last manned fighter produced by the U.S. but I don't understand why we couldn't be happy with just upgrading existing designs with newer tech and producing new planes of that design. It's not like we need these for air superiority (that's covered by the much more useless F-22). Unmanned fighters will be ready (and far cheaper and superior to the F-35) in the next 10-20 years anyway…
Cant use unmanned tech because they can make choices like a man can. Especially if the comms are cut-off or emp attack. F35 B is about the only plane I see useful in this. But I would scrap this and bring in the F22 which much more capabilities than this.
An increase from 50 million to 95 million is not a 50% increase. It's a 90% increase.
The headline aloge is a CLEAR representation of MISREPORTING on the F-35 program. Costs are not 'rocketing'.
*
Brandon & gmanaz,
Engage some brain cells & learn somthing instead of posting such garbage.
@pfcem
Uhh…engage some brain cells and be more specific in your criticisms instead of saying general things like the posts are "garbage". That is the way a five year old engages in debate.
Couldn't agree more
They should have NEVER made a STOVL version of the JSF! This plane would be in service now if it wasn't for the designing that went into all versions because the Brits and Marines wanted a few aircraft. Now everyone especially the taxpayers are suffering because some idiots wanted one airframe for everyone. People never learn…
Yep. Remember the F-4?
I thought we learned a log and moved in the right direction with Boyd's input on the F-16 and the LWF competition. I just don't see LWF characteristics in the F-35…it seems more like a heavy, less-than-ideal maneuverable F-4 or F-105 Thunderchief.
Dwight D. Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Kick the lobbyists asses. they're the one that makes this country crumble.
It's too bad Ike didn't warn against the banking-financial complex while he was at it.
F-35 needs to be built. Other fighters are catching up to the F-15 and F-16, and new avionics and RAM aren't going to buy much time. To my knowledge no air superiority UACV is flying, and will be vulnerable to jamming, EMP, and network attack anyway. F-22 is better at some things but is also a maintenance nightmare and the line's been shut down. That ship has sailed.
F-35 is flying today and despite the cost overruns looks like it will be able to perform the mission. I'd rather see it built than have '70s vintage Falcons and Eagles try to hold the line while we invent truly new armed drones that will have cost overruns of their own anyway.
What about buying new F-16's or F/A-18E/F's? They are both excellent fighters and still in production. Upgrading current designs with newer tech is much cheaper than a complete redesign.
Nevertheless, too much money has already been invested not to go through with a significant purchase. It's a shame though that yet another procurement has to go through the same old shenanigans.
Well, Well, Well.
The hand-wringers have jumped in early on this one haven't they?
Q1: What percentage of the unit cost growth is due to the Customer (read DoD AND Congress) stretching the development phase due to fears of the risk involved?
Q2: What percentage of the unit cost growth is due to stretching the program and spending more $ in later year $?
Q3: What are the effects of which when combined with Congress' penchant for constantly tweaking the funding has the effect of creating duplication and inefficiencies?
continued…
Q4: What percentage of the unit cost growth is due to requirements changes and Customer constantly reprogramming the program content (moving contract deliverables forward and backward in the schedule) for CAIV (Cost as An Idiotic Variable) considerations?
Q5: Since the program is not managed to control unit costs or total program acquisition costs, but instead is managed to control total Life Cycle Costs (the true "bottom line"), what is the net effect of all the above factors on the LCC?
Q6: How has the planned ‘effectiveness’ (read: military utility) perceived to change with the cost? (think ‘value’)
Unless someone knows the answers to the above questions, any indignation and outrage over the F-35 on their part is merely a product of their own ignorance, arrogance, and/or stupidity.
Re: Q1 thru Q4: Do you know if there's a paper trail to show where each side pulled this program apart?
Q5: How have the issues with the F-35 program affected the total Life Cycle Cost versus the increase in unit cost? Is the total program cost continuing to climb or is it unit cost? Where do already sunk R&D costs factor in?
Q6: You and I have debated plenty on the military utility of the F-35 (I believe one size fits all is always doomed to failure).
My ignorance is mostly on the contracting side. I can read Arabic better than I can a DoD contract or a Congressional law (and I'm not a translator). I'm curious where in the fine print it got out of control.
Part 2
An excellent example is the habit of labling the JSF program as 'the most expensive program evah' while never also mentioning it is the 'biggest, most complex program evah'. If and when the unit buy gets cut to control total program costs, the critics will change the battle cry to 'unit costs are rising!'. I am content to let those in the know decide if any program is worth the 'cost'.
Note: I am not a contracts guy either. Like everyone else in the biz, I just 'get to' work with them.
Once again, I must recommend RAND's 2008 report: "Sources of Weapon System Cost Growth" (free online) There is nothing to the JSF program that suggests to me it should be any more immune to cost drivers.
Part 2
An excellent example is the habit of labling the JSF program as 'the most expensive program evah' while never also mentioning it is the 'biggest, most complex program evah'. If and when the unit buy gets cut to control total program costs, the critics will change the battle cry to 'unit costs are rising!'. I am content to let those in the know decide if any program is worth the 'cost'.
Note: I am not a contracts guy either. Like everyone else in the biz, I just 'get to' work with them.
Once again, I must recommend RAND's 2008 report: "Sources of Weapon System Cost Growth" (free online) There is nothing to the JSF program that suggests to me it should be any more immune to cost drivers.
Part 1
One of the problems with the 'whole story' is that it never seems to get collated outside of program channels until after the fact because (and this next part is only a belief based upon experience) there is no party outside of a program with a vested interest in getting the whole story out. There are always plenty of snipers who will exploit any reason to divert defense $ to their pet favorites and will distort any 'news' to their own end.
An excellent example is the habit of labling the JSF program as 'the most expensive program evah' while never also mentioning it is the 'biggest, most complex program evah'. If and when the unit buy gets cut to control total program costs, the critics will change the battle cry to 'unit costs are rising!'. I am content to let those in the know decide if any program is worth the 'cost'.
Note: I am not a contracts guy either. Like everyone else in the biz, I just 'get to' work with them.
Once again, I must recommend RAND's 2008 report: "Sources of Weapon System Cost Growth" (free online) There is nothing to the JSF program that suggests to me it should be any more immune to cost drivers.
Part 2
(tried to post this immediately after part 1 but I am apparently being deleted immediately 'by the administrator').
An excellent example is the habit of labeling the JSF program as 'the most expensive program evah' while never also mentioning it is the 'biggest, most complex program evah'. If and when the unit buy gets cut to control total program costs, the critics will change the battle cry to 'unit costs are rising!'. I am content to let those in the know decide if any program is worth the 'cost'.
Note: I am not a ‘contracts’ guy either. Like everyone else in the biz, I just 'get to' work with them.
Once again, I must recommend RAND's 2008 report: "Sources of Weapon System Cost Growth" (free online) There is nothing to the JSF program that suggests to me that it should be any more immune to cost drivers than those in the RAND report.
Part 2 (tried to post this immediately after part 1 but there was some weirdness going on with the comments feature)
An excellent example is the habit of labeling the JSF program as 'the most expensive program evah' while never also mentioning it is the 'biggest, most complex program evah'. If and when the unit buy gets cut to control total program costs, the critics will change the battle cry to 'unit costs are rising!'. I am content to let those in the know decide if any program is worth the 'cost'.
Note: I am not a ‘contracts’ guy either. Like everyone else in the biz, I just 'get to' work with them.
Once again, I must recommend RAND's 2008 report: "Sources of Weapon System Cost Growth" (free online) There is nothing to the JSF program that suggests to me that it should be any more immune to cost drivers than those in the RAND report.
RE: 'military-industrial' complex.
I've slapped down that canard so many times I can mostly just cut and paste a response.
First, the quote is out of context. In the very same speech and leading in to the now cliche "MI-complex" boogeyman, Eisenhower stated: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPERATIVE NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT." (emphasis mine)
continued…
continued from previous…
And Second, as I've noted elsewhere…
In the context of the times the caution against a military-industrial complex out of control, defense spending was a relatively large portion of the GDP, with the US only just coming off the industrial war footing began in WWII, and extended by the Korean and Cold War escalation. US consumer spending as a % of GDP had only just begun increasing, and it was a concern that the private sector might not continue to grow if suppressed by Federal spending.
Eisenhower was cautioning against too much federal spending, PERIOD (read the speech), it just so happens that at the time, defense WAS the most dominant factor in the equation. Since that time, defense spending as a % GDP has declined, while other government (federal down to local) has increased even more. We now have a Government-Entitlement complex, and THAT complex is now threatening the American Culture.
One must love how a plane that is not designed to really excel at nothing. Less stealthy than F-22, very heavy for it's size, doesn't seem it will come close to the new Sukhois in manuverability and dog fighting.
Not to cavil, but the F-35 program cost will not breach the Nunn-McCurdy limit in the immediate future, the PROJECTED estimated cost at 'complete' will perhaps breach the Nunn-McCurdy limits.
This whole script of 'schedule delay followed by cost' alarmism reminds me of the punchline to my favorite Dilbert cartoon:
Pointy-haired Boss: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOUR PROJECT IS BEHIND SCHEDULE?
Dilbert: YES. ..A SCHEDULE IS AN ARTIFICIAL DEVICE CREATED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE.
…WILD GUESSES ARE USED AS SURROGATES FOR KNOWLEDGE.
…PROJECT DEADLINES ARE TIED TO TRADE SHOW DATES INSTEAD OF REALITY.
…THEN MANAGEMENT CUTS THE BUDGET UNTIL FAILURE IS ASSURED.
(pause)
I ASSUME YOU CALLED ME HERE SO YOU CAN APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR ROLE IN ALL THIS.
<Pointy-haired Boss Frozen like Deer in Headlights>
Dilbert: WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR HOW BUDGETS ARE CREATED?
An excellent example is the habit of labling the JSF program as 'the most expensive program evah' while never also mentioning it is the 'biggest, most complex program evah'. If and when the unit buy gets cut to control total program costs, the critics will change the battle cry to 'unit costs are rising!'. I am content to let those in the know decide if any program is worth the 'cost'.
Note: I am not a contracts guy either. Like everyone else in the biz, I just 'get to' work with them.
Once again, I must recommend RAND's 2008 report: "Sources of Weapon System Cost Growth" (free online) There is nothing to the JSF program that suggests to me it should be any more immune to cost drivers.
I think that what really disturbs me about the whole plan, is that we are not going to see any F35's until late 2015 which means, there won't be combat ready with experienced crews in any numbers until 2017 – 2018. All for a plane that will most likely be upstaged by UCAVS in the 2020-2030 time frame.
I know a lot of people doubt UCAVS and what they will mean for the future of combat, but over my lifetime I can see that the rate of change in capabilities of computer technology has increased. UAVS were dinky remote controlled plans in 2000, now they are our best air weapon supporting our troops and carrying out strikes. I fully believe that a UCAV will be largely independent in the 2020's capable of recognizing the enemy and killing him, as well as flying air superiority missions without intervention and monitoring.
So why waste all this money on a plane that will be largely obsolete by its prime flying years when its air dominance role is better filled by F22's and a myriad of other craft can handle its ground support roles including UCAVS?
Makes no sense
For air superiority – perhaps we need a cheap airframe (unmanned?) that can deliver air to air missiles in quanity. Overwhelming the enemy with numbers can be as effective as overmatching them with technology.
We already have it.Take the storage F16 F15 A4 F5 F4 and any other plane available and convert them to UAV.They are still good airframes and the cost would be dramatically lower than building new aircraft'
What ever happened to the idea of cheap mesh networked semi-autonomous drones. If they cost a million each we could have 100 of them for every F-35 and launch them from almost anywhere. Or better yet for most things just $100K drones that are slow, and carry nothing more than a slightly oversize JDAM mortar round. Anti-air is just a matter of flying them into enemy aircraft, for enemy aircraft it would be like flocks of birds that intentionally fly into them. At 100k each you could fly literally thousands of them for CAS or CAP off of a Cruiser or frigate. No carrier deck required. For each F-35 you don't by you could get around 1000 of these things.
I am not saying don't by anymore manned aircraft, just that I think we would get 99% of the job done with lots less people in a much more flexible way with much larger numbers of extremely cheap aircraft. Instead of building a new revolutionary airframe, lets take off the shelf stuff and use it in a revolutionary way.
Caution on the "get 99% of the job done with lots less people"…
Remember that it takes 3 or 4 people to pilot a Predator…
It takes 3 people to fly the predator because it's basically manned aircraft that is remotely piloted. There are quite a number of examples of airframes that require no pilot at all, only needing an operator to be given new basic instructions. (Globalhawk is a great example, but there are a number of very very small ones) And these are just examples of aircraft working on their own. Mesh networking, mesh control and automatic deconfliction based on game theory (And the like) has been working for decades both in simulation and real world testing. It is not difficult for me to imagine a small team of operators and maintainers operating hundreds and hundreds of aircraft without to much problem.
Having said that I am sure the ramp up to something like that would be huge, I just don't know why we are not doing that, but are spending hundreds of billions on airframes that we will only get a few off and will be difficult to replace.
Boeing will be pushing the F-18E/F as available now, like the P-40B was at the beginning of WWII. The P-40 wasn't a great fighter, but it wa sthere when we needed it. The F-18E/F is not a great fighter either, but it is out there now.
Sounds like the DOD needs to reassess it' s budget against priorities again, the use of large numbers of cheap airframes has worked in the past. If they are
unmanned, then possibly they can be operated cheaper than a large fleet of manned fighters. I like the F-16 concept and it worked, but the F-35 at the size of the F-16 doesn't appear to be as manueverable?
brian,
BS, you can see a F-35 TODAY. And deliverys have NOT been delayed per the 'new' IOC. The 'new' IOC is nothing more than a policy change. Before the USAF was willing to declare IOC prior to completion of the test & evaluation program. The policy has changed & thus IOC is now not to be declared until the test & evaluation is completed. THAT'S IT!!!
IOC for the 1st UCAV squadron (by IOC we will have SEVERAL F-35 squadrons already) is not expected until 2025. And contrary to some people's wet dreams, these UCAVs are to SUPPLIMENT/COMPLIMENT the F-35. Just as an example of the reality, the USN's future CAW is planned to have only ONE UCAV squadron out of its FIVE fighter/attack squadrons.
Lockheed should be forbidden from ever bidding on government work ever again. Then they should be sued for all of the money spent on the program.
If there is a contract with the cost per plane written on it, and they sign on it they cannot change the cost. Its a legal agreement.
Yeah, there’s an idea. Let’s sue the company that screwed the US govt out of trillions of dollars and then they can go bankrupt and get a life raft grant from our “fairly divided” congress.
About using your brain before posting.
I have a good idea—when the cost per unit is first disclosed by the mfg. co make them stick to it or cancel the order and let them eat the R&D costs.would you buy a new car for 25g and then pay 70g for it–I don't think so.This kind of contractor B.S. is why our military can't get the equiptment they need.
"An increase from 50 million to 95 million is not a 50% increase. It's a 90% increase. "
AND this is CORRECT. Everyone has been doing gov'ment msth for so long and brainwashed by media reports they forget to "THINK" That is why we a human brain on the stick, to THINK and not jsut accept.
AND we wonder why there is not a balanced budget?