Photo: US Navy
May 27, 2011 By Amy Butler aviation week and space
technology
Fort Worth and Washington - As F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development regains stride, program managers are beginning to be more upbeat about the flight-test effort. But questions regarding
per-unit cost are likely to continue casting a shadow over the $380 billion project for some time to come.
Last year passed with a slow pace for flight trials—notably for the U.S. Marine Corps version. But now the project seems to be stabilizing as managers prepare to brief Pentagon procurement chief
Ashton Carter on progress implementing the restructuring announced earlier this year; the Pentagon extended flight testing to 2016, delaying in-service dates.
Flight testing is “going very well,” F-35 Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. David Venlet tells Aviation Week. He adds that each test sortie is also more productive than anticipated, leading
testers to burn through objectives quicker than planned against the new schedule crafted last August. This is a turnaround from performance last year, which was beleaguered especially by
reliability problems in the F-35B, designed for short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl), and delayed deliveries of jets to the test program. Venlet also emphasizes that his goal is to be
realistic about the F-35’s progress, avoid overpromising and discuss actual performance rather than projections. This is a shift from the earlier management style.
Poor performance last year by prime contractor Lockheed Martin forced the company to forfeit $28 million in available incentive fees, Venlet says. The company earned $7 million for achieving one
of five milestones, flight of CF-1, the first carrier version F-35. An unmet goal of delivering all of the flight-test aircraft is now coming to fruition.
Thus far this year, five aircraft have been delivered to Edwards AFB, Calif., or NAS Patuxent River, Md., for flight trials. With only 10 vertical landings achieved on the Stovl aircraft in 2010,
company officials are becoming more confident they are resolving reliability issues; more than 100 vertical landings have been conducted since the beginning of the year.
The BF-2 and -4 Stovl versions are undergoing modification in preparation for sea trials later this year on the aircraft carrier Wasp. Achieving this goal in the fall is one of five milestones
tied to incentive fees for the company in 2011. The other four are F-35C ship suitability testing at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J.; release of F-35 Block II software for flight
testing; release of the Block I training update for the schoolhouse at Eglin AFB, Fla.; and completion of F-35 static structure testing.
Steve O’Bryan, vice president of F-35 business development, says that 35 test points that he describes as “clean-up items” still have to achieve the goal of readying the F-35B for ship trials.
They include conducting more vertical landings, a fuel dump and some ground-based ship operations tests.
When Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the addition of $4.6 billion to the program this year and a major restructuring, he cited slow testing performance and Stovl weight concerns as
reasons for putting this variant on “probation.” A decision is expected in early 2013 on whether this version, the most costly and complicated, will move forward. It is being designed for use by
the U.S. Marine Corps and Italy.
Venlet has not received specific criteria that Stovl must meet to lift the probation. He says this guidance will be agreed upon and issued by the commandant of the Marine Corps and the defense
secretary. This indicates that the incoming secretary—CIA chief Leon Panetta has been nominated for the slot—could weigh in on the matter.
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin continues to focus on test results. “Based on the data I see, I see a very reliable, capable Stovl aircraft,” O’Bryan says.
The company has also made headway tackling problems that plagued manufacture of the test and early production aircraft, says Larry Lawson, F-35 executive vice president. “We are very encouraged
by the progress on production,” he told Aviation Week during an interview at his Fort Worth office.
In some cases, structures from outside the Fort Worth plant were not mating properly in assembly; mating requires very strict adherence to tolerances to maintain the stealthy fighter’s low radar
cross section. Robert Powell, who heads production on the Fort Worth line, says the development of a tool to shave the nacelle skins on the aft center fuselage brought them back into tolerance
and suitable for improved mates. He also says the company has sharply reduced the number of “traveling” tasks on the production line; this refers to work that is done out of its proper work
station (thus taking more time and costing more than planned).
These issues affected per-unit cost, which is perhaps one of the biggest challenges ahead. The F-35 was founded on the principle that economies of scale can produce a relatively low unit cost for
a highly sophisticated aircraft. However, the problem for company officials is that the cost benefit cannot be achieved early in the program with small production lots. So Lockheed is in the
position of trying to sell international partners on a unit-recurring flyway promise in the future that is not yet borne out in early production data. Without international buy-in, economies of
scale cannot be realized.
Contentious negotiations last year with the Pentagon led to the signing of the first fixed-price incentive-fee contract for low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) Lot IV. The Pentagon is upping the
pressure for Lot V to show a further reduction in per-unit price. “It is fair to expect some improvement,” says Venlet. The company has submitted its proposal for LRIP V.
Lawson, however, is mum on whether the company’s proposal reflects a reduction in the price for LRIP V. “I wouldn’t focus on LRIP V. [The question is:] Do you measure the success on this program
in LRIP I, II, III, IV or V, or do you measure it in its entirety,” he says. The average unit flyaway price at the peak production rate for the conventional F-35A is estimated at $65 million,
Lawson says. This is a slight tweak to the low-$60-million figure offered a year ago by company officials.
Thus far, program officials have 10% of the actual cost data in building LRIP IV jets. Lawson says it is too soon to know if the aircraft are tracking on cost predictions. However, per-unit cost
from one lot to the next will fluctuate depending on what number of which variants are being purchased, O’Bryan adds.
An in-depth “should-cost” review by the Pentagon of the production effort is under way in advance of LRIP V negotiations. Venlet says this review will be highly detailed and the first of a kind
for JSF; it will run through July. The LRIP V deal should be solidified by late fall, he says. The cost review is partly necessary because the Pentagon expects to have less than 30% of the actual
cost data in for LRIP IV production at that point.
Progress thus far, since implementing a new schedule outlined in a sweeping technical baseline review of the program last year, will be briefed to Carter by mid-June.
The Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) will be asked to formally authorize the new path forward for development. This phase had previously been approved for the F-35 but was revoked last year when
program managers disclosed the cost overrun. Though already in production, a reissuance of the development plan is crucial to continuing the project.
One new item being briefed to the forthcoming DAB is the Joint Strike Fighter’s helmet system. The selected design, which is built by Vision Systems International, will continue despite problems
with jitter and complications with the night-vision capability. Though there is a “very good plan in place” to address problems with the primary helmet, Lawson says the company will review
proposals for an alternate system late next month. A downselect for an alternative is slated to be complete by the end of August, and it will be developed in parallel with the primary helmet.
Once Carter codifies a new acquisition program baseline, the Pentagon will craft a new cost report for Congress. This document will outline detailed pricing data for lawmakers and will likely be
a reference for international partners looking to buy the aircraft. The Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation is finalizing details now on an updated estimate for the program, Venlet
says.
Also upcoming is a renegotiation of the development contract for JSF; the new contract will include the added testing that was identified in last year’s technical baseline review. Development is
now estimated to cost $51 billion. Program office officials are working to align funding to the various requirements laid out in the review to form an integrated master schedule. This activity,
Venlet says, will continue into July. Events in this integrated master schedule will be included as milestones in the contract, and the plan is needed before negotiations on the new development
contract can begin.
/fdata%2F4220908%2Favatar-blog-1207340840-tmpphpbvDubc.jpeg){kind=avatar}
