Death Spiral, JSF Edition, Chapter 2 of Many

Well, this week, SecDef Robert Gates has just fired the program manager for the JSF program, Major General David Heinz, and is withholding millions of dollars in performance fees to the prime contractor, Lockheed-Martin, because of schedule and budget slips, citing a "troubling performance record." (see also here, here, and here)

Lockheed-Martin's response has been nothing short of delusional, at least as described by Steve O'Bryan, L-M VP for "business development and customer engagement" for the JSF, ":

Gates' actions, in O'Bryan's view, "reflected the commitment of the U.S. government to the F-35... the program is fully funded, with more development funding and more robust leadership." The decision shows that the aircraft is "relevant today, and that the customer wants the jet right now."

I'm beginning to think that part of the reason that this program is over budget and behind schedule is that Lockheed Martin has, and so the tax payer is paying for, a, "vice president for business development and customer engagement on the JSF program".

It seems to me that this is a rather high falutin, and likely highly paid, position for what amounts to a PR flack with heavy duty knee pads.

Misapplication of resources may be a part of the problem, and Mr. O'Bryan's continued employment does not seem to me to be an example of "spending smart."

Of course, the USAF chief of staff is similarly sanguine, suggesting that the delays in the pro will only raise unit cost in the immediate term, because, like no other program before it, the delays will increast the cost only, "for a period," and he does not see a Nunn-McCurdy breach in the costs.

It makes me want to quote that Samuel L. Jackson speech from Pulp Fiction again, because it's clear that they want to f%$# the taxpayer like a bitch.

There are people who recognize the truth, like the Director Of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), who says that even with a flawless program, there will be a slippage of at least 18 months on the program, but that a flawless program is extremely unlikely, since things like the idea that modeling and simulation can reduce testing are unlikely to succeed.

Of note in the DOT&E report:

• LRIP configuration is not yet defined.
• Clutch heating on the STOVL variant
• Increases in weight and landing speeds means that tires are running into their thermal limits for the carrier (F-35C) version.
• Software instability
• They aircraft is pulling out many of its survivability features, fuel check valves in the engine nozzle and fire extinguishers, to reach the specified weight.

Additionally, it now appears that the F-35C fuselage is under-strength:

Lockheed Martin Corp. is fixing a structural weakness in the Navy version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that limits the jet’s ability to launch from aircraft carriers, according to a company spokesman.

Engineers in July discovered a “strength shortfall” in an aluminum structure in the aircraft’s center fuselage that helps absorb stresses during a catapult takeoff, Lockheed spokesman John Kent said today in an e-mailed statement.

Additionally, it appears that the carrier model may be too hot, literally for carrier decks:

The Pentagon’s Gilmore said in his report that the engine and power-systems’ exhaust on the Navy and Marine versions is powerful enough to pose a threat to carrier personnel. The blasts also may damage shields used to deflect heat on the deck, including on the CVN-21 carrier, the Navy’s most expensive warship.

“Early analyses of findings indicate that integration of the F-35 into the CVN-21 will result in damage to the carrier deck environment and will adversely affect hangar deck operations,” Gilmore wrote.

<snark>Actually, it's not a worry, since their new electromagnetic catapults don't work anyway. </snark>