Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
RE: I don't believe it is statistically correct to say that concurrency in general works all right so therefore concurrency must be OK for one specific program.
I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it is NOT OK for Congress to make up c*** about ‘Concurrency’ and then I provide evidence that is exactly what they have been doing for decades.
RE: The F-35 program's published costs are all based on a very aggressive production ramp to very high production rates of very standardized planes, thus maximizing production efficiencies and learning curve benefits BUT . . . this only works if you have a valid design that can be locked in.
Otherwise you see hugely expensive re-work both of the individual planes and the supply chain that builds them and you lose the learning curve benefits and production efficiencies that are critical to the program. This is exactly what we have been seeing and, with the latest service life failures, continue to see. This means that the program is extremely vulnerable to the effects of changes found during concurrent production and R&D, therefore there must be less concurrency to reduce risk BUT . .
I believe you overstate the amount of design change impacts and their associated costs. I’m going out on a limb only slightly (again) to state that I believe the F-35 actually has shown FEWER design problems than its predecessors and that most of the overwrought commentary coming out from the sidelines says more about the commenters than the weapon. I would also add that known F-35 rework is comparatively NOT “hugely expensive” and is at least partially already accounted for in the LRIP cost targets. As early LRIP aircraft have already been delivered under the projected costs, what we are talking about is the ‘difference’ between what will be needed and what is already accounted for. What is important is the concurrency ‘now’ costs vs. non-concurrency ‘later’ costs. If you read the studies you will find that for the most part under the definition of high (<30% development costs expended when production begins in one case), medium and low concurrency, we are already at medium concurrency headed for low – where the worst cost performance occurs and where slowing the F-35 ramp up will have the worst effects.
RE: The F-35 is already failing at its stated program goal of filling the fighter gap. Both the US and allies are buying new 4th gen planes and SLEPing old planes because of the F-35's delays (costs of which should be charged to the F-35 program) therefore the program must have more concurrency.
So how does unnecessarily slowing down fielding the F-35 ‘help’? --Especially if the Block 1/2 F-35 is already superior to the planes it is replacing? I find your assertion that the F-35 program should be ‘billed’ for other aircraft program activities curious. Aside from “what would be the point?” – How would you reconcile those costs with the costs of keeping the F-4s around longer until the F-15 and F-16s were fully effective or the A-7 around for the F-18A/B or the F-14 around until the F-18E/F came on board?
RE: There is no way to reconcile the design evolutions of a fast, high concurrency project, the need to build planes right now and the need for mass production of a fixed design inherent in the program's cost estimates.
The problem with that statement is, again, it is not that ‘concurrent’ anymore by the actual definition of concurrent. BTW: If you study how Congress has morphed the concurrency rules since the 80s it becomes clear their pursuit is counterproductive, and I believe some of the more nefarious Members darn well know it. It also appears you are presuming the F-35 design is more unstable than it is and certainly more ‘unstable’ than any of its predecessors if you use them as benchmarks.
Sep 23, 2011, 12:48:58 AM
Posted to Congressional Bloviation On The 'Concurrency Bogeyman'