30 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial

The Pentagon is downplaying serious problems with the F-35, watchdog says

by Travis J. Tritten

The Pentagon is trying to paper over serious problems with the F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft that could endanger troops, according to an investigation released Wednesday by the Project On Government Oversight.

An oversight board looking at development of the high-tech fighter made by Lockheed Martin decided in June to downgrade 19 of the aircraft's most severe deficiencies without a plan for fixes, the watchdog group found.

The moves could help speed up the F-35 program, the most expensive in Pentagon history, as it moves into a critical phase of development, said Dan Grazier, a military fellow at POGO and long-time program watcher.

“They want to be able to go up to Capitol Hill and say, ‘Nope, we don't have any more Category 1 deficiencies,'” Grazier said.

Those types of deficiencies can lead to death and injury, loss of the aircraft or a halt to the F-35 production line. The 19 Category 1 deficiencies downgraded by the F-35 Deficiency Review Board on June 4 included an emergency alert system for when pilots eject and a system for bombing coordinates that could protect troops on the ground from friendly fire.

The issues were moved to Category II status, which can impede a military mission, according to board meeting minutes obtained by POGO. Overall, the Government Accountability Office found the F-35 has 111 of the most severe Category 1 problems and 855 deficiencies classified as Category II.

“This is not how the development process is supposed to work,” according to the watchdog's investigation.

The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin did not immediately comment on the POGO investigation.

The next big hurdle for the F-35 comes on Sept. 15, which is the deadline for initial test and evaluation of the aircraft. The tri-service fighters are billed as the most advanced in the world and are chock full of new military technology. The Air Force and Marine Corps variants are already in operational use. The Navy's version is expected to be deemed ready to deploy next year.

“We are obviously just three weeks away from that, so the big rush to kind of clear up these paperwork issues is to try to meet that deadline,” Grazier said. “Having these deficiencies, it actually increases the likelihood that the program will not pass IOT&E.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/the-pentagon-is-downplaying-serious-problems-with-the-f-35-watchdog-says

Sur le même sujet

  • American exodus? 17,000 US defense suppliers may have left the defense sector

    14 décembre 2017 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    American exodus? 17,000 US defense suppliers may have left the defense sector

    WASHINGTON — A large number of American companies supplying the U.S. military may have left the defense market, according to a study announced Thursday, raising alarm over the health and future of the defense industrial base. The Center for Strategic and International Studies study said the number of first-tier prime vendors declined by roughly 17,000 companies, or roughly 20 percent, between 2011 and 2015. The full study, due to be released in January, was authored by CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group Director Andrew Hunter, Deputy Director Gregory Sanders and Research Associate Rhys McCormick. It was sponsored by the Naval Postgraduate School and co-produced by the Aerospace Industries Association, which released an executive summary on Dec. 14, the day of its annual aerospace and defense luncheon in Washington. The authors, who used publicly available contract data, write that it's unclear — due to the limitations in the subcontract database —whether the companies have exited the industrial base entirely or still perform work at the lower tiers. “There is no doubt that a huge portion of the recent turbulence in the defense industrial base has taken place among subcontractors, who are less equipped to tolerate the defense marketplace's funding uncertainly and often onerous regulatory regime — yet it remains extremely difficult to determine the real impact of these conditions on subcontractors,” the authors conclude. Further details may yet be revealed by the Trump administration's ongoing review of the resiliency of the defense-industrial base. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' assessment is due to President Donald Trump by mid-April 2018. The CSIS summary links 2011 Budget Control Act caps, subsequent short-term budget agreements, and Congress' “unpredictable and inconsistent” appropriations process to the “lost suppliers, changes in competition and market structure, and other turmoil” it found. The years 2011-2015 are considered a period of defense drawdown and decline. The authors, rather than focus strictly on the total decline of defense contract obligations over the entire period, chose to chart the “whipsaw” effect that struck certain sectors of the industrial base amid the imposition of sequestration in 2013 and subsequent budget caps. Though the defense budget had been declining in the years leading up to the Budget Control Act, the implementation of an across-the-board sequestration budget cut in 2013 “marked a severe market shock that had a considerable impact on the defense industry,” the authors say. Compared to the pre-drawdown fiscal 2009-2010 period, the start of the drawdown in fiscal 2011-2012, average annual defense contract obligations dropped 5 percent. When sequestration was triggered in fiscal 2013, defense contract obligations dropped 15 percent from the previous year. Average annual defense contract obligations fell 23 percent during the so-called BCA decline period, fiscal 2013-2015. The Army, which has a checkered modernization history, bore the brunt of the decline. Average annual defense contracts dropped 18 percent at the start of the drawdown, then 35 percent during the BCA decline period. Missile defense contract obligations actually gained 7 percent at the start of the drawdown and then dropped only 3 percent under budget caps. During his presidency, Barack Obama reversed course from early cuts to missile defense to spur the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson reacted to the internally circulated findings earlier this month, saying budget cuts are responsible for the industry being “more fragile and less flexible than I've seen it, and I've been in the industry many, many years.” “What we've seen in the industry, I'll give you an example at Lockheed Martin: At the outset of budget cuts we were about 126,000 employees; today we are at 97,000 employees,” Hewson said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California. “Our footprint has shrunk dramatically. We see some of our small and medium-sized business, some of the components that we need, there's one, maybe two suppliers in that field where there were many, many more before.” Budget cuts have squeezed the Defense Department to unduly prioritize low-cost contracts over innovation and investment. Cost “shootouts,” she said, are endangering the military's plans to grow in size and lethality. AIA Vice President for National Security Policy John Luddy said companies have coped through a variety of “healthy efficiencies,” such as mergers and acquisitions, consolidating facilities, exploring shared services, and offloading certain contracting activities. “Our companies have done an amazing job of managing the downturn, they've pulled all kinds of levels to make it work, they've shown the ingenuity of the American free market system,” Luddy said. “Nonetheless, the uncertainty of the budgeting process has become a huge challenge for us.” Army Secretary Mark Esper, formerly of Raytheon, warned lawmakers at a Senate hearing Dec. 7 that uneven funding is driving small suppliers — “an engine of innovation” — out of the defense sector. “If you're a small mom and pop shop out there, and I'm referring to my industry experience, it's hard for them to survive in the uncertain budgetary environment,” Esper said. “And we risk losing those folks who may over time decide that they're going to get out of the defense business and go elsewhere. So that's a big threat to our supply chains.” But the CSIS study found that small vendors either increased their share of platform portfolio contract obligations or held steady, while large and medium vendors were most harmed by the market shock from sequestration and the defense drawdown. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/12/14/american-exodus-17000-us-defense-suppliers-may-have-left-the-defense-sector/

  • Upgrade networks or suffer on the battlefield, generals warn

    21 octobre 2023 | International, Terrestre

    Upgrade networks or suffer on the battlefield, generals warn

    “Soldiers need to shoot, move and communicate,” the Army chief of staff said. “Technology should facilitate those fundamentals, not encumber them.”

  • Air Force: Using commercial rockets to deliver supplies not as far-fetched as it sounds - SpaceNews

    8 juin 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Air Force: Using commercial rockets to deliver supplies not as far-fetched as it sounds - SpaceNews

    U.S. Air Force officials on June 4 expressed enthusiasm about the possibility that commercial space vehicles one day could be used to ship supplies around the world. 

Toutes les nouvelles