Lankan Ranger
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 12,550
- Reaction score
- 0
USAF May Cut F-35 Sim Needs
The US Air Force is looking to slash the number of locations where it will base F-35 Joint Strike Fighter squadrons to bring down the jets estimated trillion-dollar sustainment costs.
The effort, led by Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Herbert Hawk Carlisle, the deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, looks at reducing the F-35 bases from the 40s to the low 30s, senior service officials say.
When you reduce the number of bases from 40 to the low 30s, you end up reducing your footprint, making more efficient the long-term sustainment, David Van Buren, the services acquisition executive, said in a March 2 exit interview at the Pentagon.
A 2010 Pentagon estimate pegged the 50-year sustainment cost of 2,443 Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps F-35s at more than $1 trillion. Reducing the number of F-35 bases and increasing squadron sizes at other locations could yield cost savings, according to Schwartz.
You can base the F-35 or any weapon system at multiple locations and that requires additional support equipment, it requires additional infrastructure and so on and so forth, Schwartz said at a Feb. 29 Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.
If, on the other hand, you choose to base at fewer locations and have larger squadrons 24, 30, perhaps 36 aircraft per squadron there are considerable savings and efficiencies associated with that.
The number of bases could go down even further, Schwartz said, noting that could mean fewer training simulators and less support equipment.
There are many ways to reduce sustainment costs, according to Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. This could include diagnostic systems that help with spare-parts management and taking a lean approach to field repairs.
The problem is that very often, cutting your sustainment costs is at odds with actual war-fighting needs, a classic battle of accountants versus logisticians, he said.
The Air Force operates F-35s at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., is expected to receive operational test jets later this year.
The chief has taken the initiative to go look at this and do what he can do to try to reduce that footprint over time, Van Buren said.
Asked how much the Air Force could save over the long term by truncating the number of bases, Van Buren did not provide an estimate, saying only that it would, come out in further calculations of the sustainment cost of the program.
The hefty sustainment estimate is a big area of concern for allies who plan to purchase the F-35 because they have much smaller defense budgets compared to the U.S., Van Buren said.
In many of the cases, they have one or maybe two main operating bases where theyll have their entire fleet, he said, noting that each nation will have its own sustainment estimate.
Whether it provides possible cost saving or the illusion of cost saving, or merely something that drums up political support, it doesnt sound like a bad message to send, Aboulafia said of the Air Forces plan to reduce the number of F-35 bases to save money.
Beyond the basing reductions, F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin is looking at areas to improve sustainment, including improving the jets reliability, Van Buren said.
The Pentagons 2013 budget proposal includes $9.1 billion for 29 jets, down 13 jets from prior plans. In all, the Pentagon has chosen to cut 179 F-35 aircraft buys between 2013 and 2017, which it says will save $15.1 billion.
The Air Force still plans to purchase 1,763 F-35 aircraft over the programs lifetime.
By slowing production, the Pentagon will be able to focus more on development of the jet, which is happening simultaneously with production.
As one changes a profile and reduces base, you have a different calculation with overhead absorption, Van Buren said.
At the same time, the Pentagon has completed an independent assessment of what it believes the F-35 should cost.
That should-cost evaluation that was led by [Shay] Assad, [director of defense pricing], was very well done I would say it was excellently done [and] is a part of the discussion of what we want that program to be on a part of [low-rate, initial production] 5 and on forward, Van Buren said.
Van Buren, who is stepping down as the Air Forces top acquisition official at the end of March, declined to provide that should-cost figure. In addition, the Pentagon is negotiating the fifth LRIP contract with Lockheed.
We were able to work with [Lockheed Martin] to get a fixed-price, incentive fee contract for LRIP 4, two years [earlier] than had been contemplated by the [program executive office] at that time, Van Buren noted.
USAF May Cut F-35 Sim Needs | Defense News | defensenews.com
The US Air Force is looking to slash the number of locations where it will base F-35 Joint Strike Fighter squadrons to bring down the jets estimated trillion-dollar sustainment costs.
The effort, led by Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Herbert Hawk Carlisle, the deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, looks at reducing the F-35 bases from the 40s to the low 30s, senior service officials say.
When you reduce the number of bases from 40 to the low 30s, you end up reducing your footprint, making more efficient the long-term sustainment, David Van Buren, the services acquisition executive, said in a March 2 exit interview at the Pentagon.
A 2010 Pentagon estimate pegged the 50-year sustainment cost of 2,443 Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps F-35s at more than $1 trillion. Reducing the number of F-35 bases and increasing squadron sizes at other locations could yield cost savings, according to Schwartz.
You can base the F-35 or any weapon system at multiple locations and that requires additional support equipment, it requires additional infrastructure and so on and so forth, Schwartz said at a Feb. 29 Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.
If, on the other hand, you choose to base at fewer locations and have larger squadrons 24, 30, perhaps 36 aircraft per squadron there are considerable savings and efficiencies associated with that.
The number of bases could go down even further, Schwartz said, noting that could mean fewer training simulators and less support equipment.
There are many ways to reduce sustainment costs, according to Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. This could include diagnostic systems that help with spare-parts management and taking a lean approach to field repairs.
The problem is that very often, cutting your sustainment costs is at odds with actual war-fighting needs, a classic battle of accountants versus logisticians, he said.
The Air Force operates F-35s at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., is expected to receive operational test jets later this year.
The chief has taken the initiative to go look at this and do what he can do to try to reduce that footprint over time, Van Buren said.
Asked how much the Air Force could save over the long term by truncating the number of bases, Van Buren did not provide an estimate, saying only that it would, come out in further calculations of the sustainment cost of the program.
The hefty sustainment estimate is a big area of concern for allies who plan to purchase the F-35 because they have much smaller defense budgets compared to the U.S., Van Buren said.
In many of the cases, they have one or maybe two main operating bases where theyll have their entire fleet, he said, noting that each nation will have its own sustainment estimate.
Whether it provides possible cost saving or the illusion of cost saving, or merely something that drums up political support, it doesnt sound like a bad message to send, Aboulafia said of the Air Forces plan to reduce the number of F-35 bases to save money.
Beyond the basing reductions, F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin is looking at areas to improve sustainment, including improving the jets reliability, Van Buren said.
The Pentagons 2013 budget proposal includes $9.1 billion for 29 jets, down 13 jets from prior plans. In all, the Pentagon has chosen to cut 179 F-35 aircraft buys between 2013 and 2017, which it says will save $15.1 billion.
The Air Force still plans to purchase 1,763 F-35 aircraft over the programs lifetime.
By slowing production, the Pentagon will be able to focus more on development of the jet, which is happening simultaneously with production.
As one changes a profile and reduces base, you have a different calculation with overhead absorption, Van Buren said.
At the same time, the Pentagon has completed an independent assessment of what it believes the F-35 should cost.
That should-cost evaluation that was led by [Shay] Assad, [director of defense pricing], was very well done I would say it was excellently done [and] is a part of the discussion of what we want that program to be on a part of [low-rate, initial production] 5 and on forward, Van Buren said.
Van Buren, who is stepping down as the Air Forces top acquisition official at the end of March, declined to provide that should-cost figure. In addition, the Pentagon is negotiating the fifth LRIP contract with Lockheed.
We were able to work with [Lockheed Martin] to get a fixed-price, incentive fee contract for LRIP 4, two years [earlier] than had been contemplated by the [program executive office] at that time, Van Buren noted.
USAF May Cut F-35 Sim Needs | Defense News | defensenews.com
