Is I’ve written before, Japan really wants to buy F-22s for the JASDF, but as this is still prohibited by US law, they are delaying their RFP for a new fighter, as they will have a long weight for the JSF since program partners get it first.
Instead, they will be upgrading the F-15Js that they are currently flying as a gap filler.
They may also buy an interim aircraft, with the F-15, doubtless with an AESA radar.
Basically, they are trying to make a fixed price fly-away offer to these nations in the $58-63 million range if they order right now. (Note: total acquisition cost is generally around double fly-away cost)
The JSF office is concerned, with no small justification, that in competition against aircraft in service (or a modification of an aircraft in service in the case of the SAAB Gripen NG) which can guarantee prices, that they will lose too many sales, and so lose economies of scale, which leads to procurement costs, which leads to unit cost increases, and so on, and so on, and so on.
According to the Lockheed Martin press release, the money is to be released for 6 aircraft under the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP), because they have passed the necessary milestones.
Seeing as how they haven’t done a vertical landing yet, I’m wondering what exactly these milestones were.
That is the money quote on the cancellation of the DDG-1000 at 2 ships. It appears that while it could technically carry Standard missiles in its vertical launchers, it could not guide the missiles, and would have had to rely on another ship to do so:
However, in the current program of record, the DDG-1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6, and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense.
(emphasis mine)
No Standard missile capability, so it’s just point defense (Sea Sparrow), and ground attack. As Galrahn notes, that makes it a more expensive variant of the Arsenal Ship canceled in the late 1990s, despite the fact that the navy very strongly implied, through the DDG designation (the “G” standing for guided missile air defense), and through its expansive descriptions of the sensor suite, that the ship could provide air defense.
It appears that the threats from new generations of anti-ship missiles will have the navy buying more Burke class DDGs, though some DDG-1000 tech would make into the new build destroyers, primarily electric drives and the new gun, along with systems to allow for a reduced crew size.
The Rand Corp. has issued a report on this, they reviewed 35 major contracts, and they have concluded that changes in procurement numbers, requirements, low ball estimates at the start of the program.
Qu’elle surprise.
It’s now called the EFV, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, but when I worked on it,* it was called the AAAV, the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.
In any case, this program is yet another long term defense development program that is seriously screwed up.
The Marines just signed a, “$766.8 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract,” for two prototypes under the, “system development and demonstration-2 phase”, which means that the original SDD did not work out so well.
The program has been delayed IOC in 2015 and full operational capability in 2025, which is a 35 year development track, and while the Senate is moving toward accelerating production, the House is looking at cutting funding.
Every single service has a jewel of acquisition programs, and they are all in trouble, with the EFV for the Marines, the DDG-1000 for the Navy, the FCS-MGV for the Army, and the F-22 (and to a lesser degree the F-35 and tanker) for the USAF.
Our defense procurement system is broken.
*Yes, I have worked everywhere. Maybe I can’t hold down a job, but more likely this has been my role as “technical hit man”, where you are parachuted in to take care of a specific need.
Basically, the modifications are to the engines, structure, and avionics:
Not clear on the need for the engine upgrade, as the two existing 1,900shp T701D engines already put out more horsepower than the upgraded transmission could handle.
There are a number of possibilities as to Boeing’s response to the new RFP, but the possibility that Boeing would refuse to submit a proposal to the RFP.
While I don’t think that Boeing would be serious about a no-bid, it would be an interesting ploy to either get the terms and conditions reset to something more favorable, get a split order, or to get the Congress to give them the contract through legislation.
I actually think that this strategy is only marginally less likely than Boeing submitting a shortened 777, because I don’t think that they could meet a timetable for the bids or delivery with that.
H/T The DEW Line
Well, the Air Force has released a new RFP, and already a Congressman from Boeing is whining, “Not Fair.”
You can look at the proposals (warning big PDFs) here and here
The good folks at Flight International have read it, and they note 3 major changes:
The first should favor Airbus, the second should too, because it pretty much locks out the Boeing 777, because it would require yet more development and have a higher acquisition cost.
The third might favor Boeing, because being a smaller plane, the 767 consumes less fuel, though it would likely be a wash on a per pound of fuel offloaded basis.
I still think that the Airbus offering brings a lot more to the table, but I thought that before the first award, and did not expect them to get it, because of Boeing’s political pull.
Break out the popcorn.
We’ll see what, if any changes will be made.
Seriously, anyone who thinks that a $10.7 billion purchase that includes such items as Abrams tanks is a response to actual military needs is full of it.
There are still thousands of tanks and APCs out there for them to lose, but someone in the Pentagon or the State Department has twisted their arms to buy equipment that they do not need.
They won’t be engaging in a major shooting war with anyone for the next 20+ years, and under those circumstances, T-72s and BMPs will do the job just fine.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) got language inserted into the defense spending bill to benefit Boeing, things like forbidding consideration of characteristics of the tanker proposals that might exceed the minimum requirements of the bid, which I would note is pretty much an admission that the A-330 makes a better tanker.
Well, we have a rumor that the nomination of Michael Donley for Secretary of the Air Force has had a hold placed on it by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (as if you couldn’t guess the state). She wants the military to, “the gravity of the flaws in the tanker acquisition process.”
You gotta love that military-industrial complex.
So, the Navy has discovered that the second Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), now $300 million over budget and one year late, did not have effective oversight on costs, or on schedule, it would appear.
At first, it seemed fairly straightforward, with friends of the DDG-1000 fighting it out with friends of the DDG-51, though it is complicated because, even the Navy doesn’t want any more, Admiral Mike Mullen, who is chairman of the JCS, spent a lot of time defending it, and the policy direction, to Congress.
Well, John Murtha just made everything a lot more complex. He’s proposing that instead of putting the money in either destroyer, that the money be put into an LPD-17 amphibious warfare ship, two T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo dock carriers, and long lead items for the next Virginia class submarine.
Thing is, Murtha is probably right. The surface combatant fleet, destroyers basically, is the youngest part of the fleet, and the old ships that need to be replaced are amphibious warefare craft and support ships, and the Submarines are the only survivable combatants in a surface engagement with a peer power (which is at least 20 years away), and are useful at surveillance and things like inserting SEAL teams.
Stephen Trimble is reporting that the Pentagon is concerned that its current generation of EW gear will not be able to cope with later models of Russian SAMs.
The S-300 and S-400 systems (SA-12, 20, 21, 23) have the potential even the existing ALQ-99, which is carried by dedicated jammers, the EA6B Prowler and F/A-18G Growler.
I’m not sure how much this is Pentagon budget sucking, and how much is real needs myself.
He also posted a neat Youtube (it’s about an hour long) on the history of electronic warfare in the Silicon Valley:
The former Air Force Secretary says that it’s enough to say that you just want to be friends:
Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne thinks the service should be pitiless with losing contractors, so they’re not encouraged to endlessly protest important contracts. Excessively kind language, he said, leads the losers to think they only lost by a hair. In the KC-X tanker competition, “We should have been harsher on the loser,” Wynne said during an interview July 28…….
One of the things that I’ve always said is that in order for the tanker contract to go to EADS, in an election year, it wasn’t a close thing, which implies to me that Boeing has a significantly inferior product.
Wynn is strongly implying the same thing.
It’s the Europrop International TP400-D6 engine again.
The full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) software is still being developed, and they have had issues with water ingestion tests and some indications of problems with the gearbox.
Nice to know that it’s not just the US that has bloated and delayed defense procurement.
The US Navy has proposed ending production at 2 Zumwalt class DDG-1000, and making up the difference with additional DDG-51s, and incumbent Republican Susan Collins opposes this while Democratic challenger Tom Allen supports it.
The total amount of dollars from the Navy would be similar, but the Burkes have more local content, as the Zumwalts are made from modules from all around the country (the better to spread the pork around to many Congressional districts)and then assembled at Bath Iron Works, so the Burkes mean more money for Maine, which should be a selling point for Allen.
We have two more resignations of senior staff at the USAF, Ken Miller, special assistant for Air Force acquisition, and William Anderson, USAF logistics chief.
I think that the military in general, USAF specifically, need adult supervision to ensure that their procurement does not become too incompetent, and that their interactions with other services are too hostile, and this is blowback from Rumsfeld not giving a damn about this.
This is a good move, the ships are too big and too expensive, costing at least 2½ times that of the Arleigh Burkes that they are to replace.
Susan Collins, the Senator from Bath Iron Works Maine, one of the two shipyards constructing the Zumwalt‘s, appears to be resigned to the termination of the program, though she wants more Burkes to be constructed, which are also made at BIW, which indicates that Congress won’t ram more DDG-1000s this down the Navy’s throat.
I would expect to see some investigation on integrating some of the DDG 1000 specific systems into the Burkes, specifically, the SPY-3 radar and the 155mm Advanced Gun System.
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Gary Roughead, has been highly critical of the program since his appointment in September, 2007, and sent a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy saying that the DDG-1000 would not be cheaper to opperate than the DDG-51 Burkes.