Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
The Lockheed Martin X-35
The Boeing X-32
Posted on 10/21/2001 3:23:13 PM PDT by michigander
Friday October 19 8:45 PM ET
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Production should be delayed for a next-generation fighter jet that is the subject of the largest Pentagon (news - web sites) contract ever because the jet's technology isn't at a high enough standard, congressional investigators said Friday.
The finding by the General Accounting Office (news - web sites), Congress' investigative arm, comes one week before the Pentagon is to award the Joint Strike Fighter's $225 billion production contract.
The GAO said in a report that the jet will cost more, take longer to produce and have performance problems if it goes forward.
Boeing Co. is competing with Lockheed Martin Corp. for the contract. The fighter will serve the U.S. Navy (news - web sites), Air Force and Marines as well as Britain's Royal Navy. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said Friday no decision has been made on who will get the contract.
The revolutionary warplane is designed to combine supersonic speeds with the ability to hover and will have radar-baffling stealth technology.
But the GAO said the jet's technologies have not been fully developed for its size, weight and configuration. It also said the technologies have only been shown to work in ground tests and some still are in the laboratory phase.
``We disagree with the DOD's assertion that technology is mature enough,'' the GAO said.
The report did not describe the technologies because of the contract competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The GAO had similar findings in a May 2000 report.
The GAO said if the Defense Department chooses not to delay the program then the agency should dedicate resources to ensure that critical technologies are shown to be ready.
In a written response, the Pentagon said it conducted an independent review that showed the technology is developed enough to move forward.
``We believe that the technologies are there to go into the next phase,'' said Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
But the GAO said the Defense Department used the wrong tools for assessing the technologies' risks.
Rep. Christopher Shays (news - bio - voting record), R-Conn., who chairs the House Appropriations national security subcommittee, sent a letter to Rumsfeld and other congressional members outlining the GAO's findings.
His office said Shays did not take a position on whether the jet's development should move forward.
Rick Fuller, a Boeing spokesman who had not read the report, said the technology is the most advanced in the world at this time. He also said ``hundreds and hundreds'' of airborne tests had been conducted on the jet's technology.
``All that has exceeded expectations,'' he said.
The contract to be awarded calls for building 3,000 planes for the United States and Britain. If other countries decide to replace their jets with the jet, the contractor could build another 3,000.
-
On the Net:
General Accounting Office: http://www.gao.gov
Department of Defense (news - web sites): http://www.defenselink.mil/
Friday October 19, 8:01 am Eastern Time
BusinessWeek Online
DAILY BRIEFING -- Boeing Is Losing a $400 Billion Dogfight
Daily Briefing: NEWS ANALYSIS
By Stanley Holmes in Seattle
Boeing is bracing for yet another big blow. Pentagon sources tell BusinessWeek that Lockheed Martin is positioned to beat out Boeing for the largest defense contract in U.S. history -- a $225 billion order for next-generation fighter jets to replace the F-16. With an additional $175 billion in sales to U.S. allies over the next 25 years, the contract is worth at least $400 billion.
Contract engineers confirm they've been asked to submit applications to Lockheed, but not to Boeing, to work on the jet. ``Nobody is asking me for my resume to work on Boeing's program,'' says an aerospace contract engineer. ``It's only Lockheed.'' The Pentagon plans to announce the winner on Oct. 26, after five years of testing.
Pentagon officials aren't talking publicly. During an analysts' call on Oct. 18, Boeing Chairman and CEO Philip M. Condit said not to count out his company. ``Right now, this thing is dead level,'' Condit said. That's not the view shared by Air Force officers. Says one senior Air Force general: ``The Lockheed design wins hands down.''
The Air Force will buy 60% of the initial 3,000 planes, known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The rest go to the Navy, the Marines, and to Britain.
HIGH STAKES. Lockheed JSF Program Director Tom Burbage says his team is cautiously optimistic, noting the contract is crucial for the Bethesda [Md.] defense contractor. ``If we're going to remain a fighter contractor in the future, then we need to win this program,'' Burbage says. ``This is immensely important.''
The stakes are high for both jet manufacturers. The JSF, a multirole advanced-strike fighter, will be the only manned fighter rolling off the production line after 2013. By then, Lockheed's F-16 and F-22 and Boeing's F/A-18 will have ended production.
The winner could become the military's sole supplier of fighter jets. The loser would likely leave the fighter-jet business eventually. ``If the government sticks to a winner-take-all acquisition strategy, the losing company will be hard-pressed to retain the skills required to compete as a prime [contractor] in the manned tactical fighter program,'' says Michael Heinz, Boeing's deputy JSF program manager.
SPLIT PRODUCTION? Federal lawmakers and some Pentagon officials have suggested splitting the contract between the two manufacturers to preserve the military industrial base. Senator Christopher Bond [R-Mo.], who represents the state where Boeing's military aircraft business is based, has introduced legislation that would call for such a split. Other scenarios include giving the loser up to one-third of the contract as a key supplier to the prime manufacturer.
Such an arrangement already exists in the F-22 fighter program, which is just starting initial production. Lockheed is the prime contractor, and Boeing is a key supplier. But Lockheed officials oppose carving up the JSF program. ``Any premature split of the contract would lose the cost savings,'' Lockheed's Burbage says. ``It's very important that the government picks one guy to lead this thing.''
Analysts agree that the winner-take-all strategy has been crucial to keeping down program costs. The Pentagon has said it wants the conventional variations of the JSF for the U.S. Air Force and Navy to cost no more than $30 million each. The vertical-lift versions for the U.S. Marines will cost $40 million. ``Whatever doubts the services may have about giving the whole program to one company are eclipsed by the savings they expect to get from the JSF program,'' says Loren Thompson, a defense analyst for the Lexington Institute.
DESIGN DIFFERENCES. So far, Lockheed has the edge. Its design to replace the F-16 is simply better on technical and aesthetic grounds, analysts say. Boeing was forced to redesign its tail section, and its forward placement of the engine creates a center-of-gravity challenge. Lockheed, on the other hand, opted for the more traditional placement of the engine in the rear of the fuselage, which more evenly balances the plane and makes the engine easier to replace and maintain.
Lockheed has apparently answered skeptics about the viability of its untested ``lift-fan'' system, developed by Rolls Royce. ``The lift-fan concept works,'' Burbage says. And it is favored over Boeing's ``direct-lift'' system, Pentagon sources say.
More important, Lockheed's design caters to the government's biggest customer: the Air Force. ``Lockheed never lost sight of who was buying the most planes,'' says Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst for Teal Group. ``It still comes down to the plane. It still has to fly well, perform well, and it helps to look well, too.''
Boeing's design for the JSF looks like ``a flying frog with its mouth wide open,'' say Air Force and Pentagon sources, who have tastelessly dubbed it ``Monica.'' The top Air Force leadership is dominated by fighter pilots, and ``they want a plane that looks like a Corvette, not a truck,'' says a Pentagon insider.
JOB RAMIFICATIONS. Boeing officials, of course, say looks aren't a crucial part of the design and argue in favor of the jet's performance and the company's ability to meet the Pentagon's cost target. ``We design our planes to go to war, not to the senior prom,'' scoffs a Boeing spokesman. Boeing's Heinz adds that the design may not look as ``traditional as other configurations, but it certainly meets the performance and cost criteria.''
For Boeing, losing the JSF would come at a bad time: It's already cutting 30,000 jobs at its commercial aircraft division in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Winning the JSF contract would have restored 6,000 jobs in Seattle and St. Louis. Lockheed's Forth Worth [Tex.] factory, which now builds F-16s, would likely need up to 9,500 new workers if the company wins the contract.
Boeing still makes F-18 fighters and C-17 cargo jets. ``Boeing will always build airplanes,'' Aboulafia says. ``If Lockheed loses, it has no long-term air framework.'' But losing the JSF will mean Boeing likely will turn into the military's supplier for large cargo and refueling aircraft, while Lockheed becomes the sole builder of fighter jets.
Friday October 19, 5:29 pm Eastern Time
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo., Oct 19 (Reuters) - No decision has been made on whether Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - news) or Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - news) will be awarded the $200 billion plus defense contract, the richest yet, to build a planned ``Joint Strike Fighter'' aircraft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday.
``I happened to have heard this morning before I left (Washington) that the decision on the Joint Strike Fighter has not been made,'' he said when asked about a Business Week report tipping Lockheed as the likely winner.
Nor had a decision been made on possible splitting of the work, Rumsfeld told reporters at the home of Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - news) B-2 bombers being used in the Afghanistan campaign.
The winner-takes-all contract for the joint strike fighter is due to be awarded next Friday. The next-generation aircraft is due to replace aging strike aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as the British Royal Navy and Air Force.
With as much as another $200 billion in additional future sales to friends and allies, the bonanza could be worth more than $400 billion.
The U.S. services and Britain currently plan to buy 3,002 copies of the highly modular family of aircraft that would be produced in three variants.
Business Week quoted Pentagon sources as saying Lockheed was set to beat out Boeing.
``Contract engineers confirm they've been asked to submit applications to Lockheed, but not to Boeing, to work on the jet,'' the magazine said.
The Lockheed Martin X-35
The Boeing X-32
Boeing has been posting these contingent positions for a couple of months, now. The difference is that Boeing has a lot of internal talent that can be moved right over (especially now- from the commercial side.)
LM may have an advantage, but- this was not proof of that advantage.
Bill Clinton's legacy lives on within the military.
I sure hope that's not the major factor in the decision.
But, IMHO, the Lockheed does have an advantage in the cool looking plane category.
A critical factor in the decision is that the LM plane flew the test criteria while Boeing had to modify the plane between trials. One version of the Boeing plane could fly at supersonic speed, then they had to remove the inlet cowling to do the vertical landing. Lockheed Martin's plane did it all in one flight. Right now we need the best design, and we do not have time to monkey around with the contract. Boeing has even suggested that the specification be revised to eliminate the short take off and vertical landing requirement. How can they get away with this.
The Boeing entry looks like something the Joker would fly in a Batman cartoon. No self-respecting fighter pilot would admit he flew that ridiculous looking bird.
Princess Leah: "You flew in THAT? You're braver even more pathetic than I thought.
Why wait? The military created an open and fair competition and made the rules clear. The time is up to choose the winner.
Both companies knew the rules, made their investments, and gave it their best shot. If Lockheed played by the rules and appears to have the superior product, then it deserves to win. I suspect those begging to change the rules of the game or to "delay" the selection of the winner, most likely have a financial stake in Boeing.
Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin are excellent US companies, but changing the rules in the middle of the game to favor one over the other just doesn't sound fair.
I don't like to be in the looks over performance group but I too like the LM entry. However the stage is set for a serious winner take all award. Although I am sure some of my friends at Boeing will get subcontracts when Lockheed realizes that they can't hire enough people to do all the required work.
The armed UAV's over Afghanistan are demonstrating that we can hit targets over hostile areas with "remote" pilots on the ground. Arming better versions of those UAV's in the future with air to air missiles in addition to the air to ground weapons that they have today is not much of a mental stretch, either.
And the MAJOR limitation on manueverability, even on the Raptor, is the pilot (who blacks out if certain G threshholds are exceeded. UAV's without pilots can be built to outmanuever any jet that is limited by a human pilot. It is the wave of the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.