Thomas
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,688
- Reaction score
- 0
April 13, 2:54 PMDC Aviation News Examiner Keith Stein
http://www.examiner.com/x-16795-DC-Aviation-News-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Military-officials-discuss-F35-fighter-on-Capital-Hill
Debates continue over the actual cost of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as U.S. military officials appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday to brief lawmakers on the status of the program.
The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget is asking for $1.4 billion in research and development for the F-35 program and $4.7 billion to buy 20 of the fighters and associated hardware and spares.
“These resource requirements reflect the F-35 program’s restructure recently approved by the Secretary of Defense,” Navy Vice Admiral David Architzel told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday. Architzel is the Principal Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition).
Different versions of the F-35 will replace several aircraft for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and the eight partner nations participating in the development of the aircraft.
“It is important to stress that after the extensive review that led to the recent F-35 program restructure, no fundamental technology or manufacturing problems were discovered, nor were there any changes to F-35 performance requirements,” Architzel told the committee. “All F-35 variants are projected to meet their respective key performance parameters.
Four system development and demonstration F-35 aircraft are now in flight-testing. The test aircraft are known as AF-1, BF-1, BF-2, and BF-3. BF-4 is currently undergoing ground tests in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to fly to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., by May 7.
BF-1 has flown more than 40 test flights. It has demonstrated smooth and positive flight characteristics during transitions from conventional flight to slow speed flight and accomplished the first Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) transition to a vertical landing flight on March 18.
BF-2 has flown to NAS Patuxent River and has completed 20 test flights with more than 34 hours of accumulated test time.
BF-3 was flown to NAS Patuxent River in February and completed its initial 14 test flights and BF-4's first flight occurred last week.
“We have been pleased that the initial STOVL/F-35B test aircraft that have arrived at NAS Patuxent River have required little post flight work,” Architzel said.
“Though we have had recent challenges, we continue to fly as we investigate and make any required modifications,” Architzel said. “Simulated carrier landings has demonstrated sink rates above those experienced during normal carrier landings. Testing continues to investigate variations in aircraft attitude, but data thus far has matched well with predictions. Additionally, we have recently cleared BF-2 to utilize its on-aircraft speech recognition capability for flight test, which, when completed, promises to enhance warfighting capability and reduce pilot workload.”
According to the Pentagon's most recent Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35, it is meeting all of its performance goals, passing all of its tests, and "setting new standards for quality.”
“But that is not the message Congress and the public are hearing,” according to Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-based defense policy think tank.
“With the best of intentions, Congress and the Obama Administration have implemented a series of acquisition-reform measures that are making the problem worse,” Thompson said in a Lexington Institute document released Tuesday. “Efforts to clarify the cost of programs are sowing confusion. Efforts to reduce risk are raising costs. Efforts to restore confidence are undermining political support. In short, acquisition reform is backfiring.”
“Instead, they are awash in a continuous stream of misleading information about rising costs and schedule delays,” he said. “The high-water mark in this flood was reached last week, when an anonymous defense official told the web-site InsideDefense.com that each F-35 would end up costing between $133 million and $158 million. Those numbers are ridiculous, and the resulting news story omitted several key details.
“The most basic measure of military-aircraft program cost used by the Pentagon is the ‘unit recurring flyaway’ cost, because it is the foundation on which more inclusive measures are based. Unit recurring flyway cost is the amount it will cost to produce each plane, not counting sunk costs such as research and development and service-life items like spare parts and training. Those ancillary items typically are not included in the price tag for a production plane, so they have little impact on the behavior of prospective buyers.
“The unit recurring flyaway cost for the most common version of the F-35 will be about $60 million in today's dollars. That's roughly what the latest variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters cost, and less than half what an F-22 costs. The Pentagon estimates the F-35 will cost some higher amount, but its estimates have consistently been well above what the contractor actually charged.
“In fact, Lockheed Martin is proposing a price far below Pentagon estimates, and government negotiators in turn are trying to get a price below what Lockheed Martin is proposing. That implies that the government doesn't take its own estimates seriously when the time comes to negotiate a price.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-16795-DC-Aviation-News-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Military-officials-discuss-F35-fighter-on-Capital-Hill
Debates continue over the actual cost of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as U.S. military officials appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday to brief lawmakers on the status of the program.
The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget is asking for $1.4 billion in research and development for the F-35 program and $4.7 billion to buy 20 of the fighters and associated hardware and spares.
“These resource requirements reflect the F-35 program’s restructure recently approved by the Secretary of Defense,” Navy Vice Admiral David Architzel told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday. Architzel is the Principal Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition).
Different versions of the F-35 will replace several aircraft for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and the eight partner nations participating in the development of the aircraft.
“It is important to stress that after the extensive review that led to the recent F-35 program restructure, no fundamental technology or manufacturing problems were discovered, nor were there any changes to F-35 performance requirements,” Architzel told the committee. “All F-35 variants are projected to meet their respective key performance parameters.
Four system development and demonstration F-35 aircraft are now in flight-testing. The test aircraft are known as AF-1, BF-1, BF-2, and BF-3. BF-4 is currently undergoing ground tests in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to fly to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., by May 7.
BF-1 has flown more than 40 test flights. It has demonstrated smooth and positive flight characteristics during transitions from conventional flight to slow speed flight and accomplished the first Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) transition to a vertical landing flight on March 18.
BF-2 has flown to NAS Patuxent River and has completed 20 test flights with more than 34 hours of accumulated test time.
BF-3 was flown to NAS Patuxent River in February and completed its initial 14 test flights and BF-4's first flight occurred last week.
“We have been pleased that the initial STOVL/F-35B test aircraft that have arrived at NAS Patuxent River have required little post flight work,” Architzel said.
“Though we have had recent challenges, we continue to fly as we investigate and make any required modifications,” Architzel said. “Simulated carrier landings has demonstrated sink rates above those experienced during normal carrier landings. Testing continues to investigate variations in aircraft attitude, but data thus far has matched well with predictions. Additionally, we have recently cleared BF-2 to utilize its on-aircraft speech recognition capability for flight test, which, when completed, promises to enhance warfighting capability and reduce pilot workload.”
According to the Pentagon's most recent Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35, it is meeting all of its performance goals, passing all of its tests, and "setting new standards for quality.”
“But that is not the message Congress and the public are hearing,” according to Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-based defense policy think tank.
“With the best of intentions, Congress and the Obama Administration have implemented a series of acquisition-reform measures that are making the problem worse,” Thompson said in a Lexington Institute document released Tuesday. “Efforts to clarify the cost of programs are sowing confusion. Efforts to reduce risk are raising costs. Efforts to restore confidence are undermining political support. In short, acquisition reform is backfiring.”
“Instead, they are awash in a continuous stream of misleading information about rising costs and schedule delays,” he said. “The high-water mark in this flood was reached last week, when an anonymous defense official told the web-site InsideDefense.com that each F-35 would end up costing between $133 million and $158 million. Those numbers are ridiculous, and the resulting news story omitted several key details.
“The most basic measure of military-aircraft program cost used by the Pentagon is the ‘unit recurring flyaway’ cost, because it is the foundation on which more inclusive measures are based. Unit recurring flyway cost is the amount it will cost to produce each plane, not counting sunk costs such as research and development and service-life items like spare parts and training. Those ancillary items typically are not included in the price tag for a production plane, so they have little impact on the behavior of prospective buyers.
“The unit recurring flyaway cost for the most common version of the F-35 will be about $60 million in today's dollars. That's roughly what the latest variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters cost, and less than half what an F-22 costs. The Pentagon estimates the F-35 will cost some higher amount, but its estimates have consistently been well above what the contractor actually charged.
“In fact, Lockheed Martin is proposing a price far below Pentagon estimates, and government negotiators in turn are trying to get a price below what Lockheed Martin is proposing. That implies that the government doesn't take its own estimates seriously when the time comes to negotiate a price.”
