Air Force, Lockheed Talk About Fighter (F/A-22 Cost Overruns)

Yahoo Business ^ | 12/11/02 | Harry R. Weber - AP Business Writer

[NormsRevenge]

Air Force, Lockheed Talk About Fighter
Wednesday December 11, 6:45 pm ET
By Harry R. Weber, AP Business Writer

The Air Force said in a statement it is committed to seeing the costly project through, and analysts said the meeting was a good first step.

"You just don't throw away $26 billion to save $1 billion," said Paul Nisbet, a defense analyst with JSA Research Inc. in Newport, R.I. "That doesn't work. Since you have been at this now for 15 years, you don't want to start over."

Roche and his aides met privately with Lockheed executives for several hours at the Marietta plant, where the stealth fighter jets are being built. Reporters were kept from the facility during the meeting.

"There were no ultimatums," said Lockheed spokesman Greg Caires. "It was, 'We're you're customer. You're our contractor. We are going to work together.'"

Lockheed told Roche the company is committed to completing the program's development phase and delivering operational fighter jets to the Air Force, Caires said. He said ideas for further cost-saving measures are being discussed.

Last week, the Air Force said its F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet program is facing cost overruns of $700 million and possibly as high as $1 billion. It said the money problem would likely force the Pentagon to cut back on the number of Raptors it buys.

The Air Force wants to buy 339 Raptors, but Pentagon estimates say the Air Force may only be able to afford 295 of them. In 1991, the number it wanted was as high as 750, Nisbet said. The latest cost overruns have been blamed on balky cockpit software and problems with the high-tech plane's tailfins.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. is making Raptors at a low rate for testing. Boeing is a major subcontractor on the jet. The first combat-ready F/A-22s are supposed to hit the Air Force flight line in 2005.

The stealthy, supersonic fighter, described as a successor to the aging F-15, is expected to be faster than any other, more automated and able to travel greater distances without refueling.

Because of the delays and cost overruns, a whole new management team is currently overseeing the project. The Air Force fired its two generals overseeing the project and Lockheed replaced its executive handling the project.

[PatrioticAmerican]

And the Marines are short of bullets????

[The Real Deal]

I've been to the F-22 Raptor web site. It looks like a good fighter jet. I don't really know much about it though.

[fourdeuce82d]

Zoomie ping...

I don't know enough about these numbers- are they "fly away" costs, or do they represent cost over the lifetime of the aircraft?

How many maintenance man hours do these aircraft require vs. current aircraft? What impact does their superior capability vs current aircraft have on sortie rates?

Can fewer more expensive aircraft save us money in the long term?

Only thing I know about aircraft is I wuz pushed out of a bunch o' them, and landed on my head several times.

fly-boy feedback appreciated.

[spetznaz]

Ping.

[GallopingGhost]

It looks like a good fighter jet.

Mach speed without afterburners, thrust vectoring, radar signature the size of a bumblebee. Just average stuff.

[Centurion2000]

Mach speed without afterburners, thrust vectoring, radar signature the size of a bumblebee. Just average stuff.

Wait till some whiz kid RPV guy figures out how to fly one without the pilot on board ..... the last physical frailty of the aircraft will be gone. 15-30G turns anyone ?

[fogarty]

Exactly, the Pentagon wastes billions on this Lockheed fighter, meanwhile Marine and soldier infantrymen go to mountain battles with gear from 20 years ago! They still haven't made a good mortar system to replace the aging 81mm's.

I sincerely hope Rumsfeld cancels the F-22 altogether. I am so happy I dumped my Lockheed stock at its height of 70 bucks a share.

Word on the street now is that they are WAY behind on JSF, and it just got started! They have yet to reach one manpower rampup goal the government has set for them on JSF. They've had to rob people from the F-16 block 60 just to staff up JSF to sub-par levels.

Lockheed tactical aircraft division is about a dysfunctional a company as I've ever seen.

[VaBthang4]

Thanks for the Ping but I think this is K-Dog's territory. :o)

What's the word oh great keeper of "Desert-Beatdown II" secrets.

[SandfleaCSC]

They still haven't made a good mortar system to replace the aging 81mm's.

My heart goes out to the two poor jarheads that have to hump an 81 up and over a 14,000ft. Ashcanistan mountain. I would rather spend eternity on Satan's stairmaster.

[staytrue]

If the plane is more than 1860 miles from the remote operator, then there will be a lag time of at least 2/100 of a second for the remote operator compared to a pilot's reaction to a situation. Light travels at 186,000 miles per sec. or 1860 miles per 1/100 sec. Since the signal must go 2 ways, the delay is 2/100 of a sec. Does this time difference matter ? It might. Plus there is the problem of electronic jamming disrupting the signal. Plus if you encode then decode the signal, the delay could be more in the 1/10 of seconds.

[Gunrunner2]

The F-22 is a superb aircraft.

The concept was agreed with only 80% of the technology actually developed. This means, the remaining 20% is based on an idea, a concept really, that we could eventually build what we want and need. We do this because technology is advancing at a tremendous rate and government acquisition processes are glacial when it comes to responding to changes.

Now, for the US, we buy based upon the mission, demonstrated technology, and proposed capabilities. Unfortunately, much like when buying a new car, or a first software release (like a Windows upgrade), the first years production will expose flaws and “bugs” in the system that no matter how much testing you do, you won’t discover until later. This is what we are seeing in the F-22.

While we do hold Program Management Reviews every few months to access the status of the program, to include assessing emerging and relevant technology, it still takes time to modify the contract to include any technology changes/enhancements. Therefore, we leave about 20% of the technology to the “proposed” world, and when the proposed technology emerges, it is easily incorporated into the design. The Europeans, however, do no such thing, and this results is building a fighter that is obsolete the day the contract is signed, let alone 10-years later when it rolls off the production line.

Bottom line: we conceptualize what we need, contract for what contractors can deliver, and agree that certain concepts should be included when developed. This is where some/most of the cost overruns come from. How does one accurate assess the cost of technology we don’t have yet? We make our best guess, that is how.

The F-22 is sound and the F-22 will be light-years ahead of any completion out there—and that is what we want. We don’t want a fair fight, we want an unfair fight where the bad guys lose badly, and we win easily.

Cheers.
Gunrunner2

[Centurion2000]

If the plane is more than 1860 miles from the remote operator

One solution would be to design the software to fight alone as much as possible and then you could deck out a B-2 with pilot/passengers.

Or have the pilots on an AWACS 100 miles back behind the fight.

[fogarty]

Part of the reason for financial over runs is the 'cost+' arrangement of the contract. For the taxpayers money, a 'firm, fixed price' contract results in far better stewardship of taxpayer money.

Regardless of the eventual dominance of this aircraft (and I have no doubts about that), $1 billion in cost overruns is a very serious issue. In this time of rapidly growing federal deficits, I hope Rumsfeld cleans house on this one.

[Gunrunner2]

Perhaps, but cost + is best when you are talking about an undefined contract price (like not knowing what the cost will actually be, building with unknown technology).

Of course, IMHO, it is the acquistion protocols/limitations that cause the greatest problems.