By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program faces a bevy of serious issues that have the potential to further drive up costs and to significantly add to delays to the program, according to the findings of a high-level Pentagon review completed in November 2011. The report containing the results of the "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review" was obtained by POGO, which first made the report available to the public[click here to view the report below the jump]. Bloomberg’s Tony Capaccio first reported on the report’s findings.
Although the Quick Look Review (QLR) team did not identify any “fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production,” thirteen major issues were found. In sum, according to the report:
Five issues were found where major consequence issues have been identified, but root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development: Helmet Mounted Display System, Fuel Dump Subsystem, Integrated Power Package, Arresting Gear System (CV variant) and a classified issue [Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman believes the “classified issue” refers to something related to the JSF’s stealth capability]. Three issues were found where potentially major consequence discovery is likely pending outcomes of further discovery: Buffet, Fatigue Life, and Test Execution. Five issues were found where consequence or cost is moderate, but the number of moderate issues poses a cumulative concurrency risk: Software, Weight Management, Thermal Concerns, Autonomic Logistics Information System and Lightning Protection.
Given that the F-35 is in an early stage of flight testing, the QLR team believes it is likely more problems will come to light.
More problems threaten to exacerbate the already spiraling costs of the F-35, which has already been set back by years of delays and double digit cost growth. The F-35 is the world’s most expensive weapons program, currently estimated to cost some $385 billion for development and production, and about $1 trillion to maintain and operate F-35 aircraft over decades.
The review called into question the large amount of “concurrency” built into the F-35 program. Concurrency is the practice of procuring some quantity of a weapon system before it’s been fully developed and tested. Buying more, early while a program is still in development means there is more concurrency. “Concurrency is present to some degree in virtually all DoD programs, though not to the extent that it is on the F-35,” the report notes, adding that “the F-35 program began procurement in FY07 before flying the first developmental aircraft (BF-1) in FY08.” POGO has long argued that excessive concurrency is a bad deal for taxpayers and has advocated that the U.S. “fly before it buys.”
Relatively large numbers of F-35s are being procured even though the program is early in its development and testing, which means when problems are discovered, the relatively large number of already-procured planes have to undergo costly retrofits. The large number of retrofits and changes concerned the QLR team:
…the quantity of major Change Requests (CRs) from June 2010 to November 2011 is a concern. Currently, there are 725 change requests which are in the process at the engineering kickoff stage, 696 change requests at the engineering release stage, 538 change requests awaiting manufacturing bill of materials (MBOM) release, and 148 change requests available awaiting implementation. Therefore, of the 725 change requests that have been at the engineering kickoff stage, 577 are still not yet available to implement. These figures are indicative of the large volume of change traffic on this program and low design maturity.
The QLR team essentially urged the F-35 program to go slowly and make production decisions based on how the aircraft does in testing. Additionally, they recommended that assessments of concurrency for the three different variants of the F-35 be considered separately because they have substantially different designs and expectations for when they will be developed, tested, and produced.
Prominent critics did not mince words in reaction to the report. “The new revelations are numerous and significant enough to call into question whether F-35 production should be suspended—if not terminated—even in the minds of today's senior managers in the Pentagon,” stated Winslow Wheeler, a former veteran Senate staffer and current director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the non-profit Center for Defense Information, in an email describing the report’s results. Former Pentagon analyst Franklin “Chuck” Spinney told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Bob Cox that the problems, when taken together, “are a showstopper."
The United States also has several international partners who are paying for some development costs and planning on buying F-35s. Those partners are watching the program closely. One of those is Australia. Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia, a think tank that has been critical of the F-35, told POGO, “The program is clearly beyond repair, as the QLR shows that the problems in the design are deep and systemic. Bandaiding is not going to yield a viable product.”
But just as significant is report language that calls into question many of the F-35’s capabilities.
“Performance vis-à-vis so called ‘legacy’ aircraft is seriously questioned,” Wheeler added. “Legacy “ aircraft refer to the planes the F-35 is intended to replace, such as the F-16, F/A-18, A-10 and other planes.
According to the report, there is a concern about “the lack of certain legacy aircraft CAS [close air support] capabilities on the F-35.” Furthermore:
The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment. These conclusions were driven by certain classified issues, critical performance criteria for the helmet mounted display, air vehicle performance, and air-to-air weapons employment.”
Check out the full report here:
Nick Schwellenbach is POGO's Director of Investigations.
Image via Flickr user Mohamed A.El-Kady.
Hey there, J Allen, socialism isn't a bad word. Our military is a socialist enterprise. It is wholly run by the government. Our founding fathers weren't Ayn Rand purists. They were practical men who used capitalism where capitalism works best and socialism where socialism works best.
Now that said, I'm with you on wanting to use capitalism wherever possible, because clearly it gives a better result in terms of innovation and cost. In the case of these fighter jets, though, companies like Lockheed and Boeing have threatened for years to "no compete" contracts that were not favorable enough for them. I too say, "screw you" to those jerks. You don't want to compete, then let the US Air Force build its own planes. There's nothing that prevents them from hiring the same people Lockheed and Boeing employ now.
And how bad could socialism be? Could it possibly be worse than paying a contractor a profit incentive to drag out development for 2 or 3 decades like we do now? Could it be worse than telling the contractor, build the airplane as expensive as you want it to be and we'll pay you 10% profit on top of that? Yeah, then we can't believe it when the price per airplane goes through the roof! Gee, who could have possibly seen that coming?
Your idea has more merit than you know, and plenty of historical backing too. Back when our Navy was 700 to 1000 bad ass ships instead of 250 limp ships like today, the Navy designed and built their own ships in their own ship yards. Plus, remember Werner Von Braun? Yeah, he was a NASA employee. He didn't work for Boeing or Lockheed. Back when he designed our rockets we could go to the Moon. Ever since they started contracting out their rocket designs, we've been stuck in low Earth orbit, not able to go anywhere. Don't give up on your idea, J. Allen. Talk to your friends about it. It has merit.
Posted by: Dfens | Dec 31, 2011 at 01:43 AM
Where is the outrage...........Lockheed Martin continues to fleece the public........and the Congressman that support this program should be ran out of Washington! The Air Force maintains a civilian workforce that regularly works alongside the military and maintains the "legacy" aircraft. There is NO reason that workforce could not handle a cradle to grave weapon system without Lockheed and their stockholders. I am not a proponent of socialism, but our nations defense should be treated more carefully.
Posted by: J. Allen | Dec 29, 2011 at 06:03 PM
leakage of this report is just a tactic of US
Posted by: duursa | Dec 19, 2011 at 02:21 AM
If we know what we want and have laid it out for the company and they want to sell their product to us, there should be no cost over-run. It's just like buying a car the company has to shoulder some of the costs. Their are other companies that would love to have this contract. Take politics out of the process.
Posted by: George B | Dec 16, 2011 at 02:12 PM
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html
Posted by: imispgh | Dec 16, 2011 at 01:59 PM
Wow, it's almost as if Lockheed plans to use these problems as an excuse to drag out development. You don't suppose their approach has anything to do with the fact that their contract covers all of their development costs and provides them with a 10% profit on top of those costs? I mean, it sure doesn't provide them with a lot of incentive to get things done in a hurry, does it? The longer they drag things out, the more profit they make. What a brilliant way we've found to build weapons. Hell, we'd be better off to pay the USAF, a "not for profit" enterprise to design and build their own aircraft. I know it is *gasp* socialist, but then so is the US Air Force. That's why they're "not for profit". In fact, they seem to be for losing as much our money as possible.
It is funny, though, we pay a "for profit" company more to screw over the US taxpayer and the small minority of our military forces who actually fight our wars, and then tell them that this is the "capitalist way of building weapons," as if just using the word in a sentence makes the fact that all the capitalist incentives reward these contractors for screwing the taxpayer and soldier all magically ok.
Posted by: Dfens | Dec 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM