Senators Ask Panetta For Estimate To Terminate JSF Program

[I don't exist]

The two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have formally requested an estimate of the cost of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today.

The letter comes from Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), the chairman and ranking member of the committee, respectively. McCain has been especially critical of the F-35 program in recent months and failed in an effort to cancel the program during the committee's recent mark-up of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill.

In their letter, Levin and McCain request more information from the Defense Department about its reprogramming request -- submitted to Congress last week -- which asks permission to move $264 million from other accounts to pay for JSF overruns. The department also recently informed Congress it would need an additional $496 million to pay for cost overruns on Lots 1-3 of the F-35, a request that has raised alarm in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The Committee is concerned about three quarters of a billion dollars in increases in these three contracts since last year," the letter reads. “That raises many questions that must be answered before a decision is made on this reprogramming, including . . . what would be our legal obligations and our costs if we were to terminate the F-35 program now.”

The letter also asks Panetta to explain the department's legal obligation to pay for those increases; to discuss any alternatives to reprogramming funds to pay for unplanned F-35 costs; to provide more information on how these funds could be recovered in current or future contract negotiations; and to explain how DOD intends to avoid future cost overruns on the program, and specifically how it intends to avoid placing that financial obligation on taxpayers. -- Gabe Starosta

[SurelySerious]

Do they have a plan for what to do when they cancel it? I doubt it. The aircraft it is supposed to replace aren't getting any younger; with the excruciating length of any acquisition process these days, the B-52 and the Super Hornets will be the only manned weapon carrying aircraft left flying when the solution starts flying.

[Ram]

If anything, it'll be the B mod (VSTOL) version that gets the axe.

[contraildash]

If anything, it'll be the B mod (VSTOL) version that gets the axe.

Just a thought on that. I was under the impression that the whole point of the Harrier was to operate from austere forward airstrips to support the grunts. Have they ever really done that? Other than the small decks (LHDs) they fly off, why do they still need VSTOL capability?

I read a book about flying the Harrier in Afghanistan (A Nightmare's Prayer, not a half bad read) and it gave me the impression that in our current wars the jet needed long runways and decent support infrastructure to operate with useful combat payloads.

/sidetrack thought off

edit: spell'n

Edited July 16, 2011 by contraildash

[SurelySerious]

Just a thought on that. I was under the impression that the whole point of the Harrier was to operate from austere forward airstrips to support the grunts. Have they ever really done that? Other than the small decks (LHDs) they fly off, why do they still need VSTOL capability?

I read a book about flying the Harrier in Afghanistan (A Nightmare's Prayer, not a half bad read) and it gave me the impression that in our current wars the jet needed long runways and decent support infrastructure to operate with useful combat payloads.

/sidetrack thought off

edit: spell'n

I think the main reason that the Brits were pursuing that version is because they don't have any full size carriers currently, but didn't they change their mind recently and plan to build a supercarrier coupled with purchasing the F-35C instead?

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I don't think that the project should be canceled, but the contract probably needs to be renegotiated. Half a billion in overruns and the AF just took delivery of their FIRST test article? Something ain't right. An acquisition contract shouldn't be a blank check.

[GoAround]

Although from the NYTimes, still a good read...

The Pentagon’s Financial Drawdown

By GORDON R. ENGLAND

Fort Worth

THE new secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, will soon face the challenge of significantly reducing the Pentagon’s budget. As directed by President Obama, he will have to find at least $400 billion of savings over the next 12 years, or $33 billion per year — about 5 percent of the current annual defense budget. His decisions will reshape our armed forces for decades to come and determine whether we live in a more or less dangerous world.

Having overseen the preparation and execution of the defense budget, I urge Mr. Panetta to resist the temptation to quickly kill procurement programs and research and development activities. Nor should he make proportional cuts to programs across the board. History shows that this would result in a hollowed-out force that will embolden our enemies. It’s the easiest way to go, but also the worst.

Instead, Mr. Panetta should first cut the department’s civilian workforce before reducing the size of the military force. The Pentagon rightly pressures industry to reduce overhead costs, but it is far more inefficient itself. Starting in 2003, the number of active military sailors was reduced by over 60,000, but efforts to cut the Navy’s civilian workforce failed due to onerous government and union rules and regulations. Mr. Panetta should seek blanket authority from Congress to shrink the Pentagon bureaucracy. Cutting 100,000 of 700,000 is a reasonable target. And there should be no additional outsourcing, thereby forcing the Pentagon to operate more efficiently.

Second, Washington must do more to encourage the sale of defense equipment to our friends and allies abroad, like the littoral combat ship, the mine-resistant ambush-protected armored vehicle and a host of other combat and combat-support equipment. Manufacturing equipment for the American and foreign militaries simultaneously saves Washington money because more units are produced and overhead costs are shared, and it creates thousands of American jobs. The savings generated by international sales are too big to ignore, yet in too many cases the Pentagon has been only lukewarm in supporting such sales.

Third, the Pentagon should put a moratorium on starting any new procurement programs. Instead, it should use the money to increase the rate of production on existing ones and complete them faster and for less. All too often, the Defense Department fails to control its appetite, with too few dollars chasing too many programs. The result is the formation of “procurement death spirals,” during which the Pentagon buys fewer and fewer units at higher and higher prices.

Fourth, the new secretary of defense should adjust the military’s “tooth-to-tail ratio” — the ratio of fighters to support personnel — which is increasingly out of balance. During my time at the Pentagon, a large number of Army soldiers never deployed to a combat zone, whereas many of those who did were sent multiple times. Mr. Panetta should concentrate on cutting administrative workers — not the fighting force, intelligence personnel and front-line maintenance troops. Such cuts would greatly increase efficiency.

Finally, the Pentagon should give the heads of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force and combatant commanders more say in decisions over buying equipment, including weapons. Right now, they identify their requirements at the beginning of the lengthy process for procuring equipment, but they do not have sufficient voice later on in the process — sometimes many years later — when there are opportunities to reduce costs. Too often, outdated specifications and contract language bind the government and the contractor to expensive purchases that have only marginal benefits. If service chiefs and combatant commanders were given the chance to modify unnecessarily complex or costly features, they could save time and money.

Mr. Panetta has served America admirably for decades, as a congressman, White House chief of staff and C.I.A. director, and he inherits the world’s finest military. But as he takes on his formidable new responsibility, I urge him to draw a lesson from the past. During the nearly five-year span between the end of World War II and America’s entrance into the Korean War in 1950, we let our armed forces deteriorate. As a result, America was woefully unprepared for the brutal fighting on the Korean Peninsula.

Budget decisions do have consequences, and making the right ones is crucial for our nation’s security.

Gordon R. England served during the administration of George W. Bush as secretary of the Navy and deputy secretary of defense.

[nsplayr]

Although from the NYTimes, still a good read...

Definitely a good read and it being an opinion piece by a long-serving former DOD official, the source that happens to run it doesn't really even matter...

[ClearedHot]

Definitely a good read and it being an opinion piece by a long-serving former DOD official, the source that happens to run it doesn't really even matter...

England is out of touch and out of the loop and his statements prove he has no idea about some of the changes that have occurred over the past year the single biggest being the huge adjustment made to the tooth to tail during the efficiencies drill Sec Gates ran last year....to the tune of $100 Billion.

[nsplayr]

England is out of touch and out of the loop and his statements prove he has no idea about some of the changes that have occurred over the past year the single biggest being the huge adjustment made to the tooth to tail during the efficiencies drill Sec Gates ran last year....to the tune of $100 Billion.

Wasn't trying to agree with Gordan England necessarily, just saying the fact that his op-ed ran in the Times didn't necessarily mean it was infected with evil liberal bias.

What's your take on the JSF future? I think most crew dogs are very skeptical it's gonna pan out anywhere the numbers being planned for.

[GoAround]

Wasn't trying to agree with Gordan England necessarily, just saying the fact that his op-ed ran in the Times didn't necessarily mean it was infected with evil liberal bias.

What's your take on the JSF future? I think most crew dogs are very skeptical it's gonna pan out anywhere the numbers being planned for.

I agree, not all things coming from the NYTimes is "infected"...

As for the JSF, I was in a briefing with a GO from the HAF who was asked, "Do you think we'll get all the projected F-35s?" To which he replied, "1700?! We'll be lucky to see anywhere close to 700!"

[SurelySerious]

I agree, not all things coming from the NYTimes is "infected"...

As for the JSF, I was in a briefing with a GO from the HAF who was asked, "Do you think we'll get all the projected F-35s?" To which he replied, "1700?! We'll be lucky to see anywhere close to 700!"

Nice, so then the F-35 can be more expensive per unit than the F-22.

[Guest fin]

I think the main reason that the Brits were pursuing that version is because they don't have any full size carriers currently, but didn't they change their mind recently and plan to build a supercarrier coupled with purchasing the F-35C instead?

The Brit navy's had its eyes on bigger carriers since the Falklands War and I understand the plan to replace the Invincible class always involved something about the size they're building. I believe just as big a driver for them buying the B was that it was also meant to replace the RAF's Harriers, which are all now retired. They have gone for the C, but last I heard one of the two carriers is likely to be offered for sale not long after it's ready, to India if they're willing. The planned buy was about 150; no idea what it is now, but if a carrier goes then that has to take a slice out of the navy's total.

[Fud]

I was watching the Nova program called "Battle of the X-Planes" the other day, which aired on PBS in 2003. One of the first things that happened was that the program went 100 million over budget. The financial folks said it was a "glitch", but I viewed that as a bad sign early on in the program, and the cost seems to be getting higher and higher. I like Panetta's stance on saving money, but I hope they can cut the useless programs and not the useful people.

[di1630]

Its just a political shot across the bow. The JSF program is too joint and large to fail.

[PolyestherDuck]

Its just a political shot across the bow. The JSF program is too joint and large to fail.

I'd rather see them make a Block 70 Viper, new versions of the Eagle, and a Super Super Hornet. Toss in some stealthy deep penetration/strike RPAs and we're good to go. Make an extended range HARM, extended range AIM-120, and more JASSMs and there's no need the majority of the CAF would need to be L.O.

[Royal]

Its just a political shot across the bow. The JSF program is too joint and large to fail.

If by that you mean it's too joint and large to stop getting funding, I agree. If by too joint and large you mean it'll actually work and be an asset, I'm not convinced.

[ClearedHot]

The Brit navy's had its eyes on bigger carriers since the Falklands War and I understand the plan to replace the Invincible class always involved something about the size they're building. I believe just as big a driver for them buying the B was that it was also meant to replace the RAF's Harriers, which are all now retired. They have gone for the C, but last I heard one of the two carriers is likely to be offered for sale not long after it's ready, to India if they're willing. The planned buy was about 150; no idea what it is now, but if a carrier goes then that has to take a slice out of the navy's total.

The Brits can't afford either carrier and as they start a second round of major cuts it the carrier gets the axe there is no reason to buy JSF, especially when you already have Typhoon on the ramp.

Its just a political shot across the bow. The JSF program is too joint and large to fail.

I disagree. USAF and USMC have bet the house on the program, but the supporting timbers are starting to give way. The Navy has been quietly buying F-18's to "fill the gap", Australia is buying F-18's as well. This week several European countries announced a three year procurement slip. The Italians want it but can in no way shape or form afford it, the Israelis say they are in but they are buying it with our money and most importantly, the new SECDEF is a known budget cutter who is looking at a huge bogey with regard to reducing the Pentagon budget. Nothing is off the table.

[contraildash]

I understand the situation that the British are in, but I made my comments based more on our own Marines Other than flying off the LHDs, have the Marines made use of VSTOL in combat operations? Not throwing spears at them, just curious on my part. If not, why not just give them the C model and fly off big carriers / long runways?

[Buddy Spike]

I'd rather see them make a Block 70 Viper, new versions of the Eagle, and a Super Super Hornet. Toss in some stealthy deep penetration/strike RPAs and we're good to go. Make an extended range HARM, extended range AIM-120, and more JASSMs and there's no need the majority of the CAF would need to be L.O.

Absolutely. This aircraft is a Day 1 or 2 requirement. We needed maybe one or two squadrons of them for the first few days, then have the Block 69s, Eagles, and Hawgs (with new engines) do the rest of the work.

Having one aircraft try to be all things to every mission results in an aircraft and pilots that can't really do anything well.

[ClearedHot]

have the Marines made use of VSTOL in combat operations? Not throwing spears at them, just curious on my part.

Yes

[Bullet]

have the Marines made use of VSTOL in combat operations?

The better question would be: "do the Marines need an VSTOL aircraft that is also LO? Are they really going to deploy their aircraft in a forward location where the airspace is contested or denied?"

[HuggyU2]

Other than flying off the LHDs, have the Marines made use of VSTOL in combat operations?

A better question would be "have they done this in a situation where this was the only option for employing air assets?"

We've all seen too many instances where a Service or their asset was called in, mainly because they wanted a cut of the action.

[ClearedHot]

Who rescued O'Grady?

Who rescued the F-15E dude in Libya?

[Shiner]

Who rescued O'Grady?

Who rescued the F-15E dude in Libya?

Harriers.