Friday, February 2, 2018

Pentagon Official: The U.S. Military Cannot Afford The Sustainment Costs Of The F-35

The Pentagon is looking at ways to lower F-35A sustainment costs. (U.S. Air Force/Connor J. Marth)

Defense News: Pentagon ‘can't afford the sustainment costs‘ on F-35, Lord says

WASHINGTON – Sustainment costs on the F-35 are poised to become unaffordable, and that’s a big challenge for Ellen Lord, the Pentagon’s newly christened undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment.

As a result, Lord is focused on testing new business and data processes on the fifth-generation stealth fighter, including leveraging big data analytics for sustainment purposes.

“Right now, we can’t afford the sustainment costs we have on the F-35. And we’re committed to changing that,” Lord told reporters at a Jan. 31 roundtable, adding that the plane is the “most significant” program in the Department of Defense.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I recall reading years ago on how the promoters of the F-35 pushed the narrative that if all the services accepted a similar jet .... the sustainment/maintenance/etc. costs would go down. I guess they lied.
at

11 comments:

  1. Hans PerssonFebruary 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM

    What! Promoters that lies?! Noooo :P

    ReplyDelete
  2. B.PosterFebruary 2, 2018 at 11:02 AM

    Hans,

    I don't think this is a case of "lying." I think it is more a case of someone really believing they could do something, an entity lacking a profit motive, and, as such, critical questions were never asked. As the product gets developed, the self-images of the designers/builders get tied up in the product and they are simply unable to admit they are on the wrong path. "If only we could devote more resources" they say. A more apt analogy would be "stop throwing good money after bad."

    The proper approach would be to cancel the product and allow the people who worked on it to retire with dignity. Essentially when in a hole the first step should be STOP DIGGING!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownFebruary 2, 2018 at 3:55 PM

    Logistically, the rule of thumb would be that it would be or should be cheaper.

    Have we pushed the limits of what an atmospheric craft can do?

    Making an air platform into a fighter, bomber, ground attack everything aircraft would seem to be a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roger SmithFebruary 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM


    "....when in a hole stop digging."

    That sentence sir, is a keeper in my book.


    Roger

    ReplyDelete
  5. JamesFebruary 2, 2018 at 4:25 PM

    Because of the leaps info handling, usage , etc, the world is on the doorstep of AI and it's advances that very few people (and especially I)have any inkling of how, what, and where the future holds in this regard. I will again bring attention to the fact that the commenter mclix is one that I listen to very carefully on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  6. manstienFebruary 2, 2018 at 4:40 PM

    The problems with the f35 stem from its conception as a new unkillable project.based on the concept that if you spread out manufacturing in multiple states political pressure would eusure it's incomprehensible momentum. We are fucked if this type of coruption goes unadressesd?

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousFebruary 2, 2018 at 5:26 PM

    F35 was never really setup to be a National plane. Look at the F22 and how restrictive its sales are. If anything all this highlights is a need for another plane to be built for domestic purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. jacFebruary 2, 2018 at 10:00 PM

    Well, F-14 and F15 had very bad beginning. And now they are praised as the best of their time. Any new technology needs time to be mature.

    ReplyDelete
  9. UnknownFebruary 2, 2018 at 11:58 PM

    Jac,

    You are exactly right, but...

    Wasn't that what they were suppose to do in the TMRR phase?

    ReplyDelete
  10. B.PosterFebruary 3, 2018 at 1:10 AM

    Aizino

    "Making an air platform into a fighter, bomber, ground attack everything aiecraft would seem to be a mistake." Agreed!! It seems it would've been cheaper to develop 3 separate planes, a fighter, a bomber, and a ground attack aircraft. Not only would it be cheaper but the end priducts would be better than the F-35. The F-35 appears to be trying to be a "jack of all trades. Jacks of all trades generally end up being the "master of none." Additionally an adequate fighter, bomber, and ground attack plane could've been developed much quicker. Instead we wasted, money, resources and time on this rabbit-hole of the F-35.

    While America may well be a major power, it is trying to punch above its weight in the world manifested in part but not limited to far to many world wide committments further complicated by the fact that many of these commitments not only don't advance American interests but actually undermine them. This appears to me to lead to a tendency to "swing for the fences" by investing in high risk projects. In this case, 3 "solid basehits" of a good fighter, bomber, and ground attack aircraft would've been adequate and actually achievable.

    ReplyDelete
  11. UnknownFebruary 3, 2018 at 10:14 AM

    A++ Poster

    Everything about you is a tell.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(poker)

    ReplyDelete