Category: Defense Procurement

Yet Another Service Sabotaging Itself

No Comments

In this case, it’s the Marine Corps, which is slipping the date of the 1st flight of its CH-53K heavy lift helo by 2 years for no apparent reason:

The first flight of the U.S. Marine Corps’ heavy lifter CH-53K helicopter has slipped two years to 2013, while its initial operational capability (IOC) has slid three years to 2018, officials have confirmed to AVIATION WEEK.

The date slips come as no surprise to the Marines and the CH-53K program office at Naval Air Systems Command (Navair). In January 2009, program manager Capt. Rick Muldoon submitted a Program Deviation Report for the aircraft’s critical design review (CDR) to the Pentagon acquisition headquarters. The CDR is now slated for September, representing a year’s delay.

There is no indication of technical problems or of development issues that would justify this.

So, why is this happening?

It appears that it is happening because the helo largely meets or exceeds the payload and range capabilities, though not the speed, of the V-22 Osprey and as such, it is a threat to Marine Corps procurement plans for the tilt rotor and foreign sales:

Why slow the program? When delivered, the new fly-by-wire CH-53K will, in theory, transport 27,000 pounds of external cargo out to a range of 110 nautical miles, nearly tripling the thirty-year old CH-53E’s lift capability under similar environmental conditions–all while fitting under the same shipboard footprint.

The CH-53K will also provide unparalleled lift under high and hot conditions while maintainability and reliability enhancements to the CH-53K will decrease recurring operating costs over the current CH-53E (the CH-53K aims at a more reasonable $10,000 dollars per flight hour while the CH-53E costs twice that). Survivability and force protection enhancements will also increase protection dramatically, for both aircrew and passengers. What’s not to like?

The CH-53K was an unsung showpiece for those preaching the virtues of incremental development, and, as a result, appetite for the platform has grown by about 30 percent, with the program of record expected to increase from156 aircraft to 200.

But, in the process, the CH-53K has become something of a MV-22-killer. Is this the problem?

Ummm ……… Yes?

The CH-53K is steadily eating away at the V-22 Osprey market. In late 2009, the Marine Corps decided to go with the CH-53Ks to replace their 40-year old CH-53D fleet (MV-22 Ospreys were originally slated to replace the CH-53D). At about the same time, Israel decided to forego the Osprey for the CH-53K, killing the Osprey’s best hope of snaring an international buyer. And with the Osprey 65% availability and the MV-22s high operating costs of about $11,000 dollars an hour, the CH-53K posed a serious threat to the MV-22 program.

Even worse, studies from the Pentagon demonstrated that a CH-53K-equipped big-deck amphib provided a lot more logistical support for embarked Marines than the MV-22, suggesting the mix of embarked MV-22s and CH-53Ks needed tweaking (and possibly fewer MV-22s).

(emphasis mine)

Much in the same way that the USAF is scrambling to retire legacy F-16s and F-15s so as to make the F-35 JSF a dire need, the Marine Corps is slow walking the CH-53K in an attempt to protect their orders, and possibly encourage foreign orders, for the ruinously expensive Osprey.

The program is being delayed because it is too successful.

This is what is wrong with defense procurement in the US Military in a nutshell.

India Restructures MMRCA Competition

No Comments

It appears that because of an inability of the Indian defense bureaucracy to evaluate proposals in a timely manner has required that the schedule for the downselect to 3 competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program be pushed back an indeterminate length of time, (paid subscription required) which, under the terms of the contract, requires a rebid from the competitors.

FWIW, my money is still on MiG winning, the Indians already fly the aircraft, and the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Superhornet are really too large to be “Medium,” the F-16 is also operated by the Pakistanis, and the Gripen, by virtue of being Swedish, does not have the requisite geopolitical pull.

Then again, the final selection still appears to be at least 3 years off, and my powers of prognostication are in serious doubt.

And the Tanker Saga Continues………

No Comments

It’s official

There was much hemming and hawing, but the Pentagon offered a 60 day extension for EADS to make the the bid, which will will slip the award of the contract to some time next year and French President Nicolas “Bling Bling” Sarkozy leaned on them to make the bid, so EADS moved forward.

They have entered into entered into negotiations with L-3 as a key supplier, which is basically a way for them to put a bit of a US front on the program tanker.

So, EADS has decided to go it alone, without a US partner, and bid for the contract.

I think that a lot of this is really about maintaining a presence, so as to keep lines of communication open with the members of Congress and the Pentagon staff for future bids, but as Stephen Trimble notes, they do seem to be doing their best to play to win, as evidenced by the talking points they are sending out to Congress, which are a harsh slam of Boeing, noting the fact that their plane is flying, and works, while Boeing’s proposal is not flying, and that the 767 tankers sold to the Italians and Japanese still have issues with their hose and drogue systems.

Because the new contract gives very little in the way of credit for exceeding the basic requirements, this means that their best chance to win this is to show that Boeing cannot be expected to fulfill a contract on time and on budget.

Considering Boeing’s record, this is probably true, but considering EADS’ record **cough** A400M **cough**, it is also true for them.

Your JSF Update

No Comments

Carrier Drop test h/t Graham Warwick

First and Foremost, I think that we need to start with the cost escalation of the F-35, with the unit cost estimates having escalated from $113.6 million to 136.2 million over just the past few weeks, which has triggered an official notification of a Nunn-McCurdy breach to Congress, which means that the price has escalated by more than 50%.

In the interest of fairness, Lockheed-Martin is rejecting the Pentagon numbers, and claiming that they will hit, or at least come closer to the original numbers, based on ……… I’m not entirely sure what, possibly reading chicken entrails.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, both Italy and the Netherlands are making noises about scaling back their purchases/commitment to the program, (paid subscription required)with the Italians demanding a larger workshare, and the Dutch wondering if the entire thing is simply too dam expensive.

Note that the Dutch are supposed to participate in the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E), purchasing 2 aircraft, but they have only contracted for one, and they can sell the aircraft instead of participating in IOT&E.

It all hinges on the upcoming elections.

On the brighter side for the program the first F-35 with a full sensor suite has flown, sort of:

The mission system installed for the initial flight includes the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, EW system, integrated CNI, integrated core processor and the pilot’s helmet-mounted display. The electro-optical targeting sensor and 360-deg EO distributed aperture system will be added later.

(emphasis mine)

So the most low observable sensor, and the sensor that is supposed to allow the aircraft to compete against more maneuverable aircraft by giving the pilot a 360° field of view around his aircraft are not yet flying.

Finally, we have an analysis showing that the F-16 in 1998 out-ranges the F-35. Basically a 1998 PowerPoint slide for the F-16 gives a 630 NM radius with conformal fuel tanks on a strike mission on a hi-lo-lo-hi profile with the final 50 NM in and out on the deck, as versus a 728 NM radius for the F-35, which only pops below 5000 feet once.

Additionally, the F-16 carries 2 GBU-10 2000 lb bombs + 2 Sidewanders + 2 AMRAAM, while the F-35 carries 2 AMRAAM + 2 GBU-12 500 lb bombs.

If the F-16 is just carrying 2 AMRAAM + 2 GBU-12, and conducts its operations above at 5000 feet or above, it out-ranges the F-35, and that’s without considering that the F-16 numbers include the drag of an external jamming pod, and modern F-16s have internal jammers.

Finally, for your viewing pleasure, some the Jim Lerher’s News Hour has a segment on the F-35 that appears to cover all the bases.

Unsurprising Data Point of the Day

No Comments

The US Military ranks last in the world on the metric of equipment purchased per dollar spent:

In a study due out March 15, consulting firm McKinsey & Co. examined how efficiently 33 nations that account for 90 percent of worldwide defense expenditures perform a range of functions. The study looked at how these militaries go about doing certain tasks in three key areas: personnel, maintenance and weapon buying.

…………

“The United States and Australia are the lowest performing countries with regard to equipment output for every dollar spent,” McKinsey concludes.

Brazil had the greatest efficiency of the countries surveyed.

The Soviet Union spent themselves to destruction on huge amounts of military hardware, and it appears that the good old USA is spending itself to destruction on tiny amounts of military hardware.

Not a Good Week for the JSF

1 Comment
Click for full size


The Problem: As development times of microprocessors and cars have remained steady or fallen, fighter development times have exploded.

The GAO has released its report on the JSF, and the nickel tour, as described by Bill Sweetman, is rather brutal:

The good news for the JSF program in the March 20 Government Accountability Office report – combined with the other numbers released in March – is that the program is no longer at risk of failure.

The bad news is that it has already failed.

(emphasis mine)

It’s true.

The $50 million (2002 dollars) affordable aircraft is now a $106+ million ($127+ million for the B & C versions, 2010 dollars) aircraft, and there are still significant technical hurdles to its success:

  • There is no money to pay for the alternate engine (F136).
  • The current engine, the F135 has deep and real cost and performance issues.
    • The term for these first two items is “Catch 22”: You cannot afford a alternate engine, and not having an alternate engine means that you lack a lever to force the contractor to address issues with cost and reliability.
  • Cost reduction efforts have under performed.
  • There are indications that there is significant price elasticity of demand for foreign customers, which means that they will purchase fewer, or cancel contracts, as costs increase, which will further increase unit cost. (See the Danes, below)
  • Direct operating costs are slightly more than the F-15, and significantly more than the F-16 which it is tasked to replace.

DARPA has looked at this, and concluded that the system engineering techniques used in aerospace are largely responsible for the program, because they take the top level requirements and “stovepipe” them down the chain, where they remain isolated until they eventually come together in something that resembles a multi-car pileup

In any case, one of the consequences of the cost and schedule slippage has been that the Danish government has decided to delay any decision on purchasing the F-35.

I see this as a prelude to cancellation: If they aren’t ready to buy the $106 million dollar aircraft now, they won’t be willing to buy the $126 million dollar aircraft in 4 years. (link to Google translation of the report)

Basically, once you commit to a purchase, it’s very tough to pull out, even when the cost escalates, but if you defer the decision, and the cost escalates, it’s a no brainer to stay out of the program.

The program appears to be in a death spiral, where increasing unit costs reduce purchases, which increases unit costs, etc., or to quote The Boss, “It’s a death trap, it’s a suicide rap.”

OK, The Weird Have Turned Pro: Tanker Tango Edition

1 Comment

Yes, the Russkys are Proposing a 4 Engine Tanker

So, the Northrop-Grumman/EADS team has bowed out, and EADS CEO Louis Gallois has said that it is impossible for them to make a solo bid by the May 10 deadline.

This is not surprising, they would have to develop a plan to establish a manufacturing facility, reconfirm and/or create arrangements with suppliers, etc.

Well, the Pentagon understands that, and is willing to extend the deadline to allow for a bid from EADS:

The Department has received notification from EADS North America indicating possible interest in competing for the Air Force’s KC-X Tanker and we would welcome that. Consistent with our commitment to conduct a fair and open competition, the Department invites proposals from all qualified contractors and, if necessary, we would consider a reasonable extension to the RFP deadline. That is not unusual. In fact, a few recent examples include BAMS, VH-71, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) II, LOGCAP IV, LCS, LPD-17 Repair Services, and FMTV.

So, it sounds to me like the USAF really wants to light a fire under Boeing with the prospect of some competition, because otherwise they know that the tanker will be both expensive and late without a the possibility of meaningful competition.

EADS has has not ruled out bidding if the deadline is extended (press release):

EADS will assess new situation on US Tanker Request for Proposal

Leiden, 19 March 2010

Yesterday the US Department of Defense (DoD) indicated it would welcome a proposal from EADS North America as prime contractor for the KC-X tanker competition. This is a significant development. EADS is assessing this new situation to determine if the company can feasibly submit a responsive proposal to the Department’s request for proposal (RFP).

And while this development is a positive sign that the DoD seeks competition, it does not address EADS’ underlying concerns that the RFP clearly favors a smaller, less capable aircraft, and that the additional combat capability offered by our system may not be fully valued.

An important prerequisite for our consideration of entry into this competition will be a significant extension to the period within which to prepare and submit a proposal. EADS welcomes the DoD’s recent statement which indicated a willingness to extend the timeframe. Though this is essential, it is only one factor in making a decision for EADS to compete. In the end, the company will only submit a proposal if there is a fair chance to win, after evaluating all relevant factors.

EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2009, the Group – comprising Airbus, Eurocopter, EADS Astrium and EADS Defence & Security – generated revenues of € 42.8 billion and employed a workforce of more than 119,000.

OK, I bet you have a question now, why did I say that this was weird?

After all, this appears pretty normal in the world of defense contractors angling for maximizing their chances at a Pentagon contract.

Well, the weird does not come from Boeing, nor does it come from EADS. Rather we are getting our dose of weird from the Russians, who are proposing that a modified version of their Ilyushin Il-98, called the Il-98, for the competition.

While I can see the aircraft being cheaper, low cost is what Russian aerospace has as its chief asset, I cannot see anyone going with a 4 engine aircraft, the operational costs would be higher.

Furthermore, were a Russian aircraft to get the contract, it would have the effect of reinforcing a world-wide spares and maintenance infrastructure for Russian civil aircraft generally, which would be bad for both EADS and Boeing, since this would make Russian aircraft far more competitive.

My guess is that this announcement involves a sick sense of humor and a bit of Vodka.

Or, perhaps they are trying to get a payment from Boeing not to bid.

(on edit)
My bad, the Russians will be offering a 2 engine based on the Il-96 to create the Il-98, so the economics might not be quite so bad, and given its Soviet origins, it may very well be able to operate off of less robust airfields, since Soviet designs typically have more/larger tires, and so lower ground pressure.

Still, this is just freaky.

Your JSF Update

No Comments

Just the landing


The short take off & vertical landing & cheesy music.


F136 at full reheat using JSF nozzle

The aircraft appears to have performed well in this maneuver, though it was conducted at a lighter weight than would be used in combat.

They will be taking the weight up to around 5,000 lbs of fuel and weapons as they expand the envelope.

From the video, there is no evidence of problems with things like spalling the tarmac, but this is at Pax River, and the airfield there is rather robust.

Of course, this technical success does not make the program any better run, as shown by the latest Pentagon price estimates which show the cost of the plane increasing by 90%, to $135 million each, up from the original $69 million ( inflation adjusted, it was $50m in 2001 dollars) promised in 2001.

Additionally, because of cost and weight issues, the F-35 will be eliminating fire extinguishers and “shutoff fuses for engine fueldraulics lines,” which will increase vulnerability to ground fire, and make the aircraft more vulnerable to things like light AAA and small arms fire, which makes it less attractive to operate in a close air support.

All in all, this reminds me of the death throws of the Naval F-111B, where they were literally pulling glass off the gauges and replacing it with plastic, in an attempt to get the weight low enough to make a carrier landing feasible.

Finally, the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine has hit full thrust in reheat (paid subscription required) on the test stand, and results indicate a thrust margin above that of P&W’s F135:

With all the improvements in place, DiLibero says Engine 006 test results so far indicate performance and durability is exceeding design expectations and turbine inlet temperatures are cooler than planned. “So that’s more margin for durability, or power,” he adds. GE/Rolls-Royce declines to comment on the top thrust levels achieved in maximum afterburner, but the team previously said it anticipated an estimated 5% margin over the F-35’s baseline Pratt & Whitney F135 powerplant.

“Both engine developers are working to the same specifications, and our customer has made it clear it is not in anybody’s interests to be over. However, we’re on firm ground by saying we have margin,” says F136 marketing manager Tim Morison. GE/Rolls-Royce says the additional thrust may be particularly valuable for increasing weapons bring-back capability and hover performance for the F-35B Stovl version. “We think the three-stage low-pressure turbine is what drives the margin in Stovl,” Morison says.

Considering the cost increases that appear to be in the pipe for the F135, as well as the ongoing issues with bringback weight with the STOVL version, it does seem to me that continued development of the F136 is prudent.

Ummmmm…Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

No Comments

We have a report that Denmark is withdrawing from the JSF program, and will instead purchase F/A-18 E/Fs.

Here is the Danish report translated.

I’m not surprised.

When you compare the $50 million F/A-18, with the let’s-be-serious-here $100 million + F-35, and the fact that with global warming and the potential opening of the Northwest Passage, the Danes will need to patrol around Greenland, it gives a 2nd engine has some real value.

Then again, we could have a denial tomorrow.

Why Would the USAF Buy French Mirages?

No Comments

Because they don’t want the planes sold to the Iraqi Air Force, and this would take them off the market, so the Iraqis could buy F-16s:

This is an interesting rumor. While the Mirage F-1 has almost reached the end of the line as an operational asset with the AdA, it remains a capable fighter and should stay in service for about another decade with a few other air forces (Ecuador, Morocco, and Iran). The Iraqis have recently requested that France delivers the 24 pre-embargo F-1s ordered at the time by the regime of Saddam Hussein in 1985. The Iraqi air force has a long, and relatively successful, history with the F-1 and is particularly looking forward to rebuilding its air defense capability with an aircraft it knows well. However, things are somewhat more complicated; there has been a long standing rumor of F-16s going to the Iraqi Air Force instead and lately, it would also appear that the UAE Mirage 2000-9s have entered the fray.

Sorry, but if this is true, and note that it only a rumor, some heads should roll.

While I understand how US Air Force officers might favor the F-16, it is something that they are familiar with, the idea that they would purchase the aircraft in order to clear the way for a defense contractor is over the top.

This appears to be a decision driven by a desire by some Air Force officers to secure a cushy gig at Lockheed-Martin in retirement, not a decision driven by the real needs and capabilities of the Iraqi military.

Defense Contracting in a Microcosm

No Comments
Click for full size


Canceled!


Available at 1/80 the cost

The US Navy has, for some time, been working on the Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS),* indended to deploy navy Seal teams from submerged submarines to shore.

The program has delivered one prototype, at a cost of $885 million, well above the initial cost of $80 million a boat, and so the program was finally canceled after a fire broke in the lead unit out when the batteries were being recharged.

Well a private firm, the Submergence Group, is offering their private venture proposal, which is smaller, about 1/3 the displacement, but only costs about $10 million.

And, by the by, that $10 million is a firm number. They have already built one, and it works.

What’s more it fits in the existing Dry Dock Shelter that he seals use for their current delivery vehicle, the Mark 8 Mod 1 minisub, only it has a dry environment, which means that transiting, or waiting over long periods of time won’t, as is the case with the Mk 8, require hanging out in wet suits in the water.

*Full disclosure, while I never worked on this program, I worked at the company that designed the Lithium-Ion battery packs for the ASDS, and talked with a few of the people who worked on its design.

Death Spiral, JSF Edition, Chapter 3 of Many

No Comments

A while ago, I wrote about the F-35’s exhaust being so hot that it required modifications to carrier and LPD decks.

Well, as Ron Popeil says, “but wait, there’s more/”

It is now likely that the exhaust will be hot enough so that the aircraft will be unable to operate from austere fields in STOVL mode, and by, “Austere,” we mean, “just about any non-military airfield in the world,” as well as a lot of the military ones:

But a Navy report issued in January says that the F-35B, in fact, won’t be able to use such forward bases. Indeed, unless it ditches its short take-off, vertical landing capability and touches down like a conventional fighter, it won’t be able to use land bases at all without some major construction efforts.

The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B’s exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it’s not trivial. Vertical-landing “pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust,” the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and “is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.” (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)

What’s more, if you make an appropriate landing area, it has to be in one slab, without joints, because there are current no existing sealers that can take the heat, and if the aircraft is waiting for clearance with its APU (the Integrated Power Pack or IPP) running, that can burn holes in the runway too.

Bill Sweetman is correct when he notes, “Worst case or not, there is a very big difference between a solid slab of high-grade concrete and the kind of surface you are apt to find anywhere ending in -stan.”

And then there is cost, where the JSF unit cost is up 50% from its 2002 number, shattering the Nunn-McCurdy barrier, and that is assuming that the purchase numbers remain the same, something is about as likely as Obama pursuing war crimes prosecutions against Dick Cheney.

No Bid From Northrop

No Comments

Their official statement is here, and I have a full quote after the break.

So, Northrop Grumman does not think it worth their while to bid. There is a possibility that EADS might bid for the contract on their own, but given their current cash flow issues (A380, A400M, and upcoming needs for developing the A350), I don’t see it happening, particularly when their chances are essentially nil without the fig leaf of some American “partner”.

So, Boeing will get he bid, and they know that they have no competitors, so the taxpayer is going to be done without lube.

Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program

WASHINGTON, D.C. – March 8, 2010 – The following is a statement from Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC), concerning the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker program.

“After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.

“Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department’s responsibility to determine the military requirements for the new tanker. In the previous competition, Northrop Grumman was selected by the Air Force as offering the most capable tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer. However, the Northrop Grumman and EADS team is very disappointed that the revised source selection methodology now dramatically favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker. We agree that the fundamental military requirements for the new tanker have not changed since the last competition, but the Department’s new evaluation methodology now clearly favors the smaller tanker.

“We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman’s tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.

“Our prior selection by the Air Force, our firm belief that we provide the best value offering, and the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and communities on our team over many years made this a difficult decision for our company. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources, as do our more than 200 tanker team suppliers across the United States. Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.

“We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.

“We recognize that our decision likely creates a sole-source outcome for Boeing. We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract. In the previous round, the Air Force, through a rigorous assessment of our proposal, determined that it would pay a unit flyaway cost of approximately $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers, including the non-recurring development costs. With the Department’s decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less.”

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

CONTACT: Randy Belote
(703) 875-8525
randy.belote@ngc.com

Boeing Reveals Tanker Proposal

No Comments
Click for full size


But can she type?

It appears to be based on a 767-200 design, though the wings appear longer, perhaps to ameliorate the problems that have occurred on the Japanese and Italian 767 tankers,

Additionally, the boom looks to be a significant departure from their last proposal, probably because a higher fuel flow rate is required under the KC-X contract.

Still no word as to whether or not Northrop Grumman/EADS, or just EADS alone, will bid on the program.

Your F-35 Clusterf%$# Update

No Comments

The big news is that, notwithstanding the assertions of the Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin, delays continue apace, with the Pentagon Comptroller saying that the aircraft purchase will have to be cut if the cost continues to escalate, (File that under, “Well, Duh!”) as well as concerns that the 13-month schedule slip is overly optimistic.

It should be noted that this is confirmed by reports in the Startlegram*, which, being the home town paper for the F-35 assembly line, is both in a position to be in the know, and not inclined to come out against Fort Worth’s biggest employer.

We also have Bill Sweetman noticing in the DOD press release that full rate production is delayed to 2016, about a year after where it would start with the claimed 13-month slip.

We are also seeing reports that the Israeli Air Force is extremely concerned about the delays.

You can see a report of the bald-faced lying by Lockheed and the Pentagon, where they claim that everything is hunky dory, but it makes one inclined to invoke Samuel L. Jackson from Pulp Fiction, “Does Marsellus Wallace look like,” because they are seriously f%$#ing with us.

We also have non-movement, basically heat but no light on the F136 alternate engine, with the Defense Department releasing a report saying that adding a 2nd engine was “cost neutral,” only the study did not address the value of:

  • Hedging risks.
  • Greater responsiveness from contractors as a result of competition.
  • Providing alternate growth paths.
  • Industrial base preservation.
  • Potential for innovation from a 2nd contractor.

The DoD wants to cancel the F136 because they want the plane in deployment before Congress realizes how expensive it is.

Another interesting note is that the Memorandum of Agreement specifically allows participating nations to choose the F136 engine.

One should note that the Pentagon’s estimate of development costs are twice that of GE/Rolls Royce’s, and this has led the Chairman and leadership of the House Armed Services Committee to call bullsh%$ on the report.

*The Fort Worth Star Telegram.

OK, This is Now Officially Insubordination

No Comments

The Secretary of Defense decided to cancel it, the President agreed, and forwarded the termination onto Congress, which approved, and still the US Air Force is looking at ways to preserve F-22 production tooling:

Five months after the US Congress approved the cancellation of the Lockheed Martin F-22, the air force is still deciding whether to preserve or scrap the production tooling.

The options under discussion include preserving at least the core of Lockheed’s ability to build F-22 components and systems, although restarting production is not the USAF leadership’s intent, says acquisition chief Lt Gen Mark Shackelford.

Rather, USAF officials are considering the cost of preserving tooling to sustain the F-22, which could include a service life extension programme in several years. The same tooling could also be used to repair or replace damaged Raptors.

What part of, “Your bosses told you that the program was terminated don’t you get?”

You don’t get to build new aircraft, and your continued activities are insubordinate.

JSF Update

No Comments

Well, US deputy secretary of defense William Lynn has publicly stated that there will be a 13 month delay in the completion of initial operational test and evaluation (IOTE).

Note that this is a 12 month slip from schedule announced in 2008, not from the 2005 schedule, which the 2008 schedule was a slip. It’s not 2 full years behind the 2005 schedule, so IOTE is supposed to be completed in 2015, as opposed to 2013.

Note also, that independent evaluations are showing even more slippage, not surprising given that they are cannibalizing airframes on the assembly lines to keep the test aircraft flying.

Additionally, it’s over budget, and will likely suffer a Nunn-McCurdy breach, meaning that the price has escalated to more than 150% of the contract, and it will have to be recertified.

On the brighter side, the F-35B has performed its first first short landing:

Oshkosh Truck Bid Survives Contract Protests

No Comments

BAE Systems and Navistar International have had their protests on the FMTV contract award to Oshkosh overturned by the Army:

Oshkosh Corp. fended off a challenge from two competitors, keeping a U.S. Army contract to build armored trucks valued at as much as $3 billion. Oshkosh shares jumped in late trading.

Today’s decision by the Army lifts a stop-work order placed last year after losing bidders BAE Systems Plc and Navistar International Corp. protested to the Government Accountability Office, the Army said in a statement. The companies said the Army didn’t fully weigh the risk in Oshkosh’s proposal for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, or FMTVs.

The GAO in December determined that the Army didn’t consider that Oshkosh lacked key equipment, allowing the company to receive the same high production-capability rating as BAE, which had made the trucks since 1991. The agency asked the Army to reevaluate the bids.

I’m not surprised, it was a lower bid, and the truck itself is designed to be assembled out of component parts with little, if any machining, welding, etc. being done at the plant.

At least that was the scheme when I worked there.* They did not intend to have a machine shop or an electrical shop, because they expected everything to come in to specification from the vendors.

If this is a fixed price contract, the only risk here is that of Oshkosh.

*Full disclosure I worked at Stewart & Stevenson, Tactical Vehicle Systems, in Sealy, TX on the FMTV in 1992 and 1993.†
†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.

Tanker RFP Released

No Comments

The Presolicitation Notice for the KC-X Tanker Modernization Program is online.

I think that one of the crucial changes in this process has been the death of John Murtha, which makes his likely successor on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing WA) so the EADS/Northrup-Grumman team is in a much weaker position.

Murtha appeared fairly agnostic on the tanker choice, he just wanted it done now, but Dicks is clearly going to make things difficult for anything that does not go Boeing’s way.

Northrop Grumman has been threatening to no bid the RFP, but the basic form of the RFP remains much the same as earlier drafts, in that there is little in the way of consideration for additional capacity, which would be the A330’s strong suit, as it is a larger and more capable aircraft than the 767. (also here)

Gates is still “Very Hopeful” about getting two bids, but I’m not so sure.

I will note that it appears that the impetus for not bidding is coming from Northrop, not EADS, which still appears to be
Seems to come from NG, not EADS.

Most notably, the CEO of NG has explicitly said that their policy would be to pursue profits, and not markets or market share.

Still, this might not prevent a bid, if, as Stephen Trimble observes, EADS wants to go it along:

In the absence of a Northrop-led proposal, what would stop EADS North America from submitting its own bid for the KC-X deal?

I can think of reasons why they would. If price is such a factor in the competition, cutting out the US flag bearer and bringing systems integration in-house might save some money. EADS NA has demonstrated it can win an aircraft contract from the US military. The 100th UH-72 Lakota for the US Army rolls off the assembly line in Mississippi next week. The company believes its solid performance on LUH allows it to compete on fair terms with American-owned companies for other Pentagon contracts.

On the other hand, there’s no question EADS’ chances of victory are smaller without Northrop’s help. Northrop has powerful friends on Capitol Hill and a long relationship with the customer. Moreover, as long as fuel offload requirements for the next tanker are modeled on the KC-135R, the KC-45 is going to be disadvantaged against a smaller aircraft like the Boeing 767. And let’s be honest: The UH-72, despite its success, is not a widebody tanker; it’s a civilian airspace-only light utility helicopter.

An EADS only bid is better for EADS, and for the taxpayer, but not for lobbyists or Congresscritter’s campaign war chests, which is why they teamed with NG in the first place, because if you don’t pay off legislators and lobbyists, you don’t get the bid.

One of the more interesting pieces of information here is the schedule, which looks to a first flight in 2012, and service entry in 2017.

Honestly, I do not see Boeing meeting this schedule, given their generally poor record with 767 tankers for the Japan and Italy, which were significantly behind schedule.

PDF of RFP PowerPoint after the break.

Tanker RFP Final Power Point