The F-35, a $400 Billion Boondoggle

InsideDefense confirmed Tuesday "that there are still 'outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training..." It interpreted that confirmation as "a sign of concurrence with the Pentagon's top weapons tester that the F-35 is not yet ready for unmonitored flight or formal training."

Monday, John McCain stood up on the floor of the Senate and said "it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here..." McCain was quoting an interview that AOL Defense had conducted with Vice Admiral David Venlet about the F-35. McCain then went on to say, "When the head of the most expensive, high-profile systems program in U.S. history effectively says, 'Hold it! We need to slow down much we are buying!' We should all pay close attention."

It isn't quite that simple. InsideDefense reports that on October 24th, Venlet "and Lt. Gen. Thomas Owen, the commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center, argued that the JSF program... should begin training at Eglin AFB [Air Force Base] as soon as an event-driven process results in a military flight release." Previously, on October 21st, "Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation, wrote a memo to Frank Kendall, DOD's acting acquisition chief" detailing his concerns with "safety shortfalls" and recommended a delay "in the start of training for an estimated ten months."

Velent and Owen wanted it to begin sooner, but DOD's acting acquisition chief "requested a reply from Air Force Secretary, Michael Donley, that it was the service's responsibly to address the issues..." On November 22nd, Donley replied that the service "shares some concerns with Gilmore" InsideDefense, quoting from Donely's memo, said "The Air Force agreed with Dr. Gilmore that there were still outstanding risks with the Joint Strike Fighter training at Eglin AFB" He added "that a military flight release (MFR), which would permit flight operations to begin would not be issued... until these risks have been accepted or mitigated... We have made clear to all involved that there is no pressure to initiate training".

According to InsiderDefense, Gilmore's memo had outlined "a number of airworthiness criteria... that the JSF has yet to meet." Owen and Venlet reported that they had made progress regarding some of those criteria. Nevertheless, Donley, confirmed there are still outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training and appeared to overrule objections from Venlet and Owen.

The cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already approaching $400 billion. Senator McCain wants Lockheed Martin, the F-35 contractor "to assume an increase share of any cost overruns." AOL Defense reports that "Late Monday afternoon, the Pentagon announced that a contract agreement on LRIP 5 [low rate initial production] had been reached." No details of the sharing arrangement were revealed.

McCain, again quoting AOL Defense, said "that the path we are on is neither affordable nor sustainable... If things do not improve -- quickly -- tax payers and the war fighter will insist that all options will be on the table. And they should be. We can not continue on this path." AOL Defense reminded us that last summer, McCain, who is the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services, "came within a whisker of putting the program on Death Row." That would be throwing $400 billion down the drain, but since Lockheed and the military both admit that the amount of money necessary to correct the risks cannot be accurately estimated, we don't know how much more it will cost or how valuable it would be in fighting the next generation of wars.

It has been more than 10 years since the F-35 contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, almost half a trillion dollars has been spent on its development. Generals and admirals, civilian scientists and acquisition "experts," cabinet officials and Senators are engaged in the battle for its survival, and it still seems tied up in miles of red tape. Even with all the scurrying about of the last few months, no one is willing to put a delivery date on the F-35.

With the nation in grave economic distress, why are some Congressmen and Senators refusing to cut defense spending? If we hadn't invested in the F-35, our national debt would be almost 3 percent less than it is now. Almost everyone believes that our government wastes a lot of money. The F-35 may yet be the biggest waste in history.

 

Comments

[Reese Schonfeld]

04:43 PM on 12/09/2011

The main point of the original post was to point out how complex the military industrial complex has become. As readers have pointed out, red tape overwhelms the entire process. Today, 12/09/2011, the "Inside the Air Force" reports that a new player has just joined the game. The lead F-35 test pilot, Lt. Col. Hank Griffiths, "believes the air craft is ready to be used for training F-35 pilots." No surprise here, he works for the air force military. Air Force cabinet civilians have not, as yet, replied, but so far they have differed with his conclusion.

Gabe Sterosta, an Inside the Air Force reporter, takes three pages to deliver his complex report on where the matter stands now. Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, was "dragged" into the debate by Senators Levin and McCain. They "asked Panetta to review the matter and vouch for the Air Force's plan to proceed with F-35 training". Now we have the DOD Secretary dealing with DOD Air Force civilians who are hearing from their military men that it's time to start testing, and from their civilians that it is still too risky. To read about both sides of the argument, I suggest you spend $10 and buy "Expanded Envelope, Software Fixes Bring JSF Closer To Flight Release" at http://insidedefense.com/ .
I had failed to recognize the passion this posting would provoke, I would like to thank all those who have commented for their knowledgeable and intelligent responses.

[Reese Schonfeld]

02:42 PM on 12/08/2011

Thursday's (12/8/11) Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon is protesting a Senate proposal that calls for Lockheed to pay all F-35 overrun costs. The DOD wants US taxpayers to share in the overrun costs. See:

The Defense Department is appealing a Senate proposal to have Lockheed Martin absorb all overrun costs for the next production lot of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

In a Dec. 2 appeal sent to Congress and obtained by Inside the Pentagon, DOD urges lawmakers to modify a provision in the Senate's fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill that stipulates terms for procurement of the F-35's fifth low-rate initial production contract lot (LRIP 5). That provision requires a fixed-price contract and "requires the contractor to assume full responsibility for costs under the contract above the target cost specified in the contract."

"A fixed-price contract or a fixed-price incentive contract with a 0/100 share line, is not appropriate at this early production stage of the JSF program and will result in a higher unit price and likely result in the purchase of fewer aircraft in FY 2011," DOD writes in its appeal. Instead, the department believes the intent of the Senate's language can be met with a revision: DOD suggests that the LRIP 5 aircraft contract be a fixed-type contract that requires the contractor to absorb a greater share of any overrun costs above the target costs.

[dpraptor22]

09:33 AM on 12/08/2011

There are so many inaccuracies printed here, it's hard to know where to start. I'll start with the most obvious. Almost "half a trillion dollars has been spent on it's development." That is complete BS! It's more like one tenth of that figure "spent to date" (i.e. what has been spent is past and present, not future). How many billions are spent each year keeping 30 and 40 year old jets flying? I would wager it's 40 to 50 billion every year, but this never gets figured in the debate. This is what happens when people who don't know anything about the difficulty in producing fighter jets with all of the latest bells and whistles, while the customer(s), all with differing requirements and priorities, insists on pontificating about what they know nothing about. It's easy to be a critic and throw bombs from the sidelines when you have no understanding of how these things work.

[Reese Schonfeld]

10:51 AM on 12/08/2011

We were quoting from John McCain's speech on the Senate floor.

"“If these costs of developing and buying the aircraft were not high enough, the Pentagon now estimates that operating and sustaining these new aircraft may cost as much as $1 trillion over their planned service life. Thankfully, we have reason to believe that this jaw-dropping number may be artificially high and can be reduced. But, keep in mind, the rule of thumb is that the cost of developing and buying a major weapons system tends to be only one-third of its total cost; the other two-thirds are in operating and sustaining it. So, with the development and procurement costs of the F-35 already approaching $400 billion, it would not be unreasonable to expect sustainment costs of at least $800 billion over the F-35’s life span. That amounts to about a $1.2 trillion investment of taxpayer resources, which makes the F-35 the most expensive weapons program in history. "

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=0fdcc4cc-ea5c-882c-25a3-de5218aacb05

[Bobby Ramirez]

01:45 PM on 12/08/2011

Mr. Schonfeld, Senator McCain included "procurement" in his sentence to make you believe we have procured the amount of F-35s it would take to drive the program cost to $400B. Another Senator telling another lie. With this said, I agree the F-35 is a poorly managed program and needs to be canceled. The F-22 rose in unit cost because the original contract of 750 was pared down to 187. This paring down occurred in the early 2000s, instead of the incorrectly reported stories of President Obama cancelling the program. Therefore, each new F-22 built would cost $250M+ if we kept the F-22 line open for a small (under 100 airframes) new purchase. The F-35 has not suffered the drop in order numbers, yet the average unit price has risen from $65M per to over $120M per.

Lockheed Martin senior management from the inception of this program should be investigated. It is becoming the biggest embarrassment in military procurement since the Boeing insider "lease" of 767 tanker aircraft in the early 2000s.

[dpraptor22]

01:45 PM on 12/08/2011

Well, if you are quoting from a politician's floor speech, I can see why you would say that. However, some simple checking of the last ten years defense budget yields the following math that McCain is ignoring, conveniently forgetting, or doesn't care to make clear: a little under $70B dollars has been spent "to date" (or is in the process of being spent) over the last eleven fiscal years on RDT&E, Spares, and Procurement. Not 400B, not 382B, etc. Is that number high? Yes, but you are trying to replace multiple aircraft for 3 different armed services. So of course the numbers will be high. How real is the $400B figure? Who knows? Nobody, and certainly not Sen. McCain. I can tell you this, if the government keeps up this procurement method where the procurement numbers change from year to year, and making them lower than the previous year, that cost number will grow exponentially. My admonishment to you and others who would beat on the "lying, cheating, stealing" defense contractor is to investigate the numbers that these politicians throw around before putting any stock in what they say. Their statements are usually rife with inaccuracies, screwed-up math, and flat out falsehoods.

[Tacair Command]

01:20 AM on 12/09/2011

Raptor22:

I see where you're getting confused. The quoted $400bn +/- estimate is based on total development (including follow-on blocks) and procurement of 2,400+ units for all 3 branches as is still officially expected.

Unfortunately however, the F-35 Program is simply unsustainable and a flawed business model from inception. It's based on massive scale annual procurement and assumed total volume of 3,000+ units in order to make each unit purchase affordable for Partners and other FMS orders.

Neither of which is going to happen and as such should have been better calculated and assessed. It's going to be a highly risky, unaffordable and unproven jet acquisition in the interim until block IV is made mature many years from now. Even then it won't be deemed 'affordable' as there will be far fewer than expected jets produced per year, not to mention the original cost estimates being completely wishful in the first place.

USAF will be fortunate to afford 25x block III units per year by FY16 @ > $165m ea. PUC cost. Completely miscalculated and flawed. And to top it off, USAF leadership which has boasted of wanting a 5th gen-only Air Force will now be acquiring risky, life-extended F-16 block 40/50 to offset some of the reduced F-35 orders out in the future... Sen. McCain is right: a very tragic acquisition Program and process it is.

[Wisdo]

08:27 AM on 12/08/2011

The F35 is necessary you cannot fly 1960's airframes (F15's, 16's) forever. Whats not necessary is the price tag. Who is to blame? Everyone. Cut off discretionary spending to all military programs, give the DOD a budget - make that budget a reasonable size - i.e. about 10% of what it is now, and make them stick to it.

[koos458]

01:52 AM on 12/08/2011

An incredible waste of money and resources. Welfare for the MIC.

[wahoojed]

09:59 PM on 12/07/2011

The F-35 is necessary. We need to begin replacing our old 4th generation fighter aircraft. We can't continue to rely on airplanes designed and built in the 70's and 80's. The Russians and Chinese are working on fielding their own 5th generation aircraft. We don't have another option for a 5th generation aircraft now that the F-22 was cancelled. 4th generation aircraft will not be able to compete against 5th generation aircraft in any future conflict. Air superiority is the most important aspect of a nation's ability to defend itself. Defense does come at great cost. At least it is Americans that are building the F-35, so the money is being invested in the USA.

[Wisdo]

08:29 AM on 12/08/2011

I agree with you on all that but the budget is a result of too many cooks spoiling the broth and a Head chef that keeps giving them bigger and bigger budgets and getting more and more cooks involved.

MCDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, et al are laughing all the way to the bank because we do not run these programs efficiently.

[wahoojed]

09:35 AM on 12/08/2011

Actually Congress is getting tougher on defense contractors. It is why there is so much upheaval with the F-35 and other weapon programs. Look at the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - cancelled. Not all money is wasted.

[becky bradshaw]

07:36 PM on 12/07/2011

The F-35 is useful as a bargaining chip. The D party can offer to gut Medicare in exchange for the other F party cutting the F-35.

The automatic spending cuts required as a consequence of the Super Committee failure have led to this scenario.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/super-committee-deadline-automatic-cuts-triggers_n_1104994.html

[GHarry]

06:20 PM on 12/07/2011

The F-22 has long been criticized as another multi-hundred-billion-dollar boondoggle. Now comes the even worse F-35, about which some cynics say, "It can't fight and it's too slow to run away." Why is no one held accountable for these military-industrial disasters? Why is the military-industrial complex running amok, wasting unprecedented amounts of tax dollars on unwinnable wars and unneeded or flawed weapons systems? Of course, the answer is that our government no longer really functions as a government. It's more like a cabal of special interests who are sucking the lifeblood out of the nation, one tax dollar at a time. It's gotten to the point where the U.S. can't even deliver its own mail promptly, which should come as no surprise.

[Wisdo]

08:30 AM on 12/08/2011

THe answer to your questions are "because up until now - nobody has cared". The budgets have been too huge, the purse strings have been too loose. Those days are over.