Gates Fires the Head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program

[babylonsister]

http://washingtonindependent.com/75394/gates-fires-the-head-of-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program

Gates Fires the Head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program
By Spencer Ackerman 2/1/10 1:39 PM


See this guy? Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz? He’s the program manager for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program plagued by cost overruns. Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, just fired him.

One reporter called it a “bombshell” in a still-ongoing press briefing. But Gates canceled the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet in favor of making the JSF the replacement jet, as, among other reasons, it’s operable across both the Navy and the Air Force. But defense reformers have pointed to the JSF’s ballooning costs as similarly problematic. Gates just said that the program’s coming under fiscal control. But he said he couldn’t put the program back in order “without people being held accountable.” So says a defense secretary who two years ago fired the entire leadership of the Air Force over a nuclear weapons mishap. If there’s a theme to Gates’ tenure at the Pentagon, he said, it’s that “when things go wrong, people will be held accountable.”

Unless I misunderstood Gates, Heinz’s deputy, Air Force Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, will head up the F-35 program office for the time being.

Update, 1:49 p.m.: I think I did misunderstand Gates. Pressed on who takes over the program, Gates demurred, saying an announcement is forthcoming.

Update 2, 1:55 p.m.: Don’t miss Noah Shachtman’s detailed post on Gates’ JSF bombshell.

*************************************************



Gates Sacks Stealth Jet Chief, Blasts ‘Troubling Record’ of Crucial Plane


090831-D-7203C-038

If the Pentagon doesn’t get its Joint Strike Fighter just right, the U.S. military is screwed. Which is why its a such serious, serious problem this stealthy, all-purpose jet has had such a “troubling performance record,” according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Things have gone so wrong that Gates just announced he’s sacking the head of the star-crossed, nearly $350 billion program and is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in performance fees to JSF-maker Lockheed Martin. “When things go wrong, people will be held accountable,” Gates told reporters.

The Air Force, the Marines, and the Navy are all counting on the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to serve as its aircraft of the future, replacing everything from the A-10 to the F-16 to the F/A-18. It’s meant to knock out the most advanced missile sites, spot the most elusive terrorists, and win dogfights with the most sophisticated jets from Russia or China — all at a fraction of the price of the much-ballyhooed F-22 Raptor. Gates calls it the “backbone” of “American air superiority.” Without the promise of the JSF, Gates would’ve never convinced Congress to stop production of the Raptor, the Air Force’s most advanced dogfighter. By the time the program ends, there are supposed to be more than 2,400 of the planes in the American inventory, flying off of aircraft carriers, taking off from a conventional runway, or zipping straight up into the sky.

That is, if the JSF program works as planned. So far, that performance has “not been what it should” Gates said. Total costs have ballooned by more than 45% since the program’s inception. According to some reports, the stealth jet isn’t even that stealthy. Its engines run the risk of burning holes in the decks of the ships its supposed to lift off from. Final tests for the plane could be pushed back until as late as 2016, a two-year delay.

For all these troubles — and more — Gates has fired the JSF program manager, two-star Major General David Heinz. In his place, he’ll install a three-star officer. Gates will hold back $614 million in performance awards to Lockheed Martin — a withholding the defense contractor won’t fight.

The Pentagon will spend $11 billion on the JSF next year, buying 43 planes. That’s about as much as this year’s F-35 purchase. But the program will be restructured, adding 13 more months of research and testing. Gates told the Pentagon press corps that he’s now confident the program will be able to go forward. “There are no insurmountable problems, technological or otherwise,” he said. But such assurances have been made before.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/gates-sacks-stealth-jet-chief-blasts-troubling-record-of-crucial-plane/#ixzz0eJUvmI3w


Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/gates-sacks-stealth-jet-chief-blasts-troubling-record-of-crucial-plane/#ixzz0eJUjdwA4

[FarCenter]

1. The vertical take off version should be canceled -- screw the Brits

"Its engines run the risk of burning holes in the decks of the ships its supposed to lift off from."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Dude, the VTOL variant is the coolest of the three!

You'd think they could just put some sort of reinforcement on the tarmac or flight deck.
Just drop a 1/2 piece of steel with insulation on the back side onto the deck before takeoff.

I think it's be pretty funny to watch takeoff from the desert though. Sand everywhere... LOL.

[FarCenter]

4. When you add all the weight needed for the vertical thrust, you wind up with a short range target

Not enough range, speed, or weapons carrying capacity.

It's a sop to the Marines and the Brits, who don't have proper aircraft carriers. It is a replacement for the old Harriers.

[PacerLJ35]

17. You are forgetting one important issue though

The Marines' fly off the LHA ships, and require a VTOL aircraft to do this. A full-up carrier is simply too big...overkill. That's why the Marines still have interest in the VTOL version, not just because "it's cool".

[Fumesucker]

3. USMC is going to want a VTOL attack plane too..

Harriers are getting long in the tooth by now and the Marine combat philosophy is built around very close air support.

[FarCenter]

5. That's a job for Navy aviation and aircraft carriers -- or the Air Force

Or these days for missle-equipped unmanned drone aircraft.

The Marines are the first service that should lose manned aircraft.

[Fumesucker]

6. Interservice cooperation and coordination is often far from perfect..

And aircraft carriers are not always close at hand somewhere like Afghanistan..

Drones don't carry truly heavy weapons, at least not at the present.

The whole point of Marine airpower is very close coordination with grunts on the ground, closer than they are going to be able to get with Squids or Zoomies..

[FarCenter]

10. Are there any combat aircraft operating in Afghanistan

I've never heard of any?

All the reports seem to be of Navy aircraft from the Indian Ocean or heavy bombers out of Diego Garcia.

Are there any Harriers operating in Afghanistan? At $100 / gallon for fuel delivered to the front line in Afghanistan, I'd doubt that Harriers are affordable to operate there.

[Fumesucker]

15. Good thing to know that Afghanistan is the only theater of operations

The the Marines will ever have to operate in.

Can I borrow your crystal ball some time, mine is on the fritz?

[FarCenter]

20. Regale me of tales about the Harriers effectiveness in other theaters of combat

North Carolina Crash Is Second in a Month for Marine Harrier Jet


<SNIP>
The Harrier, renowned for its ability to take off and land vertically, has long been the military's most dangerous airplane. Bedeviled by recurring mechanical problems and maintenance glitches, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any armed forces plane.

Forty-five Marines have died in the single-seat jet, with the last fatalities coming in 2001. More than one-third of the fleet has been lost to crashes. The planes that went down in the last month cost taxpayers at least $24 million apiece. The Harrier's engine is made by Rolls-Royce and its airframe by McDonnell Douglas Corp.
<SNIP>
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/16/nation/na-harrier16

[Fumesucker]

22. OK..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Sea_Harrier


Falklands War


Sea Harriers took part in the Falklands War of 1982, flying from the aircraft carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The Sea Harriers were to operate in their primary air defence role with a secondary role of ground attack, with the RAF Harrier GR3 providing the main ground attack force. The Sea Harrier squadrons shot down 21 Argentine aircraft in air-to-air combat with no air-to-air losses, although two Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire and four to accidents.<8>

A number of factors contributed to the failure of the Argentinian fighters to shoot down a Sea Harrier. Although the Mirage III and Dagger jets were considerably faster, the Sea Harrier was more manoeuvrable. Moreover, the Harrier employed the latest AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles and the Blue Fox radar. The British pilots had superior air-combat training, one manifestation of which was that they noticed Argentinian pilots occasionally releasing weapons outside of their operating parameters. Mirages released external fuel tanks (not weapons) and turned away from conflict with the Sea Harrier. This later reduced their capability to fight an effective campaign against the Sea Harrier due to reduced range.

[FarCenter]

24. Well, the Falklands War isn't exactly in support of US Marines

We'd have used actual aircraft carriers and Navy fighters in that situation.

Does the Royal Navy make a distinction between Royal Navy pilots and Royal Marine pilots for fixed wing aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm? Or is this type of distinction an American peculiarity?

[Fumesucker]

25. So are you a Marine?

You seem to know a lot about them..

[FarCenter]

26. Used to work for one who was in most of the Pacific Island landings

He was one of only two guys left from the original company by the time they were in Okinawa.

My BIL is a marine with a Purple Heart from Korea.

Spending lots of money on the wrong weapon systems doesn't necessarily keep Marines alive.

[Fumesucker]

27. So what is the right weapons system?

Apparently you seem to think it's one flown by anyone but a Marine..

[PacerLJ35]

31. VTOL is a requirement to support Marine MEUs from the LHA ships

That's the primary reason why the Marines operate VTOL aircraft. The Marines deploy as a "package" aboard an LHA, complete with helicopters and around four AV-8B aircraft to defend the MEU and provide airstrike capability and air cover.

[PacerLJ35]

30. The F-16 has a really high mishap rate too...why it's called the "lawn dart"...what's your point?

[PacerLJ35]

29. Yes, there are combat aircraft operating out of Afghanistan

[old mark]

11. In history, both the Navy and the AF are "reluctant" to supply tactical air support,

which is one of those things that - when you need it, you need it now and you need it done right.
The Air Force hates to fly that close to the ground, and the Navy seems to hate getting its ships dirty. There are instances - beginning with the US invasion of Guadalcanal in WWII - of the Navy simply sailing away, leaving Marines on shore with half their personnel, supplies and equipment sailing with the Navy. The Admiral in charge on the scene felt his ships were in danger, and refused to wait till everything could be landed to leave. (The Marines subsisted on captured Japanese food and used Japanese equipment to build a working airstrip and capture the island. The average Marine lost over 30 pounds by the end of the campaign.)

Marines train their aviators specifically in ground support, and they should not be penalized as usual by getting the worst most obsolete equipment.

Sorry to rant - I was not a Marine, but knew a few of them, and I hate to see them getting killed for no reason.

mark
Former 82d Abn Div, 1- 504 PIR

[Fumesucker]

16. Well said, thanks for the history lesson..

:patriot:

[ddeclue]

18. Actually that Admiral was lured away to chase a Japanese fleet

that he thought was a more important target.

[old mark]

23. He left bacause he was afraid his ships would be attacked by that Japanese fleet.

and he took the large field guns-155mm cannon,much of the medical supplies, food and ammunition as well as nearly have the Marines who were supposed to be invading the island. He was not attacking anyone till later - he was leaving early.
Sorry, don't mean to piss off the Navy, but they were very gun shy after Pearl Harbor. The admiral in question was later replaced.
As for the old equipment, the USMC were still using the '03-A3 Springfield bolt action rifle throughout most of the Guadalcanal campaign, even though the more advanced auto loading M-1 began to be used in the US service in 1936. The later Army units on Guadalcanal had M1's-Marines did not.

mark

[Thothmes]

28. Believe you are thinking of Admiral Halsey

pulling his carrier forces away from Leyte to chase empty japanese carriers to the North of the Phillipines in 1944.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. You gotta be kidding.

If you're in the bush you don't want some AF or Navy puke doing your close air support. "Close enough" is NOT close enough.

Marines INVENTED close air support. And to this day, the only ones to get it right.

[ddeclue]

7. You have failed me for the last time Admiral!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1Qd_FNgfM

Actually they should keep building F22's and stop thinking the F35 is the answer to everything. It really is NOT an air superiority fighter.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. One of my best friends is a Navy test pilot

and he thinks both the F-35 and F-22 are ridiculous and if this was China hundreds of people already would have been executed for both fiascos, would still be ridiculous even if they performed flawlessly and will never be deployed in large enough numbers to be of any strategic value.

[formercia]

12. ..and nobody is going to win a dogfight with a full load of ordnance.

If you make them drop their load, the day is over for them. Having the wrong mix is not going to help, and stealth ordnance isn't regular issue.

You need lots of planes with multiple capabilities.

[PacerLJ35]

19. That's because the bidding, contracting and other acquisition rules in the US are so convoluted

It's really what drags down the entire process. In the 1950s and 1960s, most aircraft weapon systems were developed quickly and fairly straightforward. Now things have been uber-politicized and the rules are just do damn ridiculous, it's hard to get anything done anymore in any decent stretch of time.

[concerned1]

9. No problem. The defense industry will give Maj. Gen. Heinz another cushy job for life

with a lot more money.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. I doubt that...he is screwed for life at this point...being relieved like this is career ending

Duncan is a friend. He was doing about as good as job as was possible under the circumstances. However, it went down on his watch, so gets to take the fall.

[walldude]

14. Billions are spent every year on weapons that don't work..

Greg Palast had some great stuff in his book Armed Madhouse on some of the insane shit they spend money on. One I remember clearly was millions spent trying to refit submarines so they could shoot Marines out of the torpedo tubes and up onto the shore. This way they could keep spending money on subs during a war in a desert.

[MrScorpio]

21. Weapon systems have become an unsustainable bureaucracy

Their main purpose now is to create a tremendous cash cow for the military contractors.

Production is farmed out to congressional member's districts for Congress Critters of key committees... To hold these members hostage to the whims of the contractors and to create a funding line for their campaigns.

Why have efficiency and consolidation when they can have expensive decentralization and generous cost overruns built into the contracts?

The revolving doors have ensured that there's a steady flow of people who gravitate between business/industry and government.

Once the massive amount of money is spent and the arsenals are stocked, well they can't just sit around gathering dust... They have to be used. Which is why we're in a constant cycle of war.

Who cares if these overly - complicated systems are incapable of dealing with inclement weather, or were originally designed for Cold War missions that no longer exist?

Corporations, whose main objective is squeeze ever plug nickel out of the US Treasury that they can, have absolutely no interest in doing anything, that may be the right thing to do, but would decrease the money shoveled into their massive coffers.

Politicians work for them, not us.

As I said, this situation is unsustainable. Much of it has created the seeds of our self destruction.

[Canuckistanian]

32. The JSF is a boondoggle

I saw firsthand the jockeying for contracts 6 years ago. It was ridiculous how bad contractors wanted a piece of that expensive pie.

If anything, its the way the contractual process has been handled, not the aircraft itself that's the problem here.

[PacerLJ35]

33. These days, most defense contracts are a boondoggle...

Just take a look at the USAF tanker mess, the rescue helicopter mess, and just about every other large procurement program.

IMO, part of the problem is politics. These days defense contractors have become pretty savvy at the gaming the system, and they'll line the pockets of their favorite lawmaker. Then the fun begins as each competitor starts to try and out-politic the other. The fun doesn't end after a design is chosen, either...then you have subcontractors doing the same thing, and politicians tinkering with the funding (including pork for their own districts, if possible) that just makes it a huge furball.

I wish we could go back to the good old days when an aircraft could be developed, tested and fielded in a few short years, in what was then a fairly straight-forward process.

[Canuckistanian]

34. Tha main problem is trying to spread the subcontracts to all 50 states

Every Congressman and Senator is trying to get their local industry involved somehow.

And that doesn't exactly jive with "best practices".