(SECNAV) Mabus: F-35 Will Be ‘Last Manned Strike Fighter’ the Navy, Marines ‘Will Ever Buy or Fly’

[unhappycamper]

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/15/mabus-f-35c-will-be-last-manned-strike-fighter-the-navy-marines-will-ever-buy-or-fly



Mabus: F-35 Will Be ‘Last Manned Strike Fighter’ the Navy, Marines ‘Will Ever Buy or Fly’
By: Sam LaGrone
April 15, 2015 1:55 PM • Updated: April 15, 2015 3:56 PM

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be “almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly,” signaling key assumptions in the Navy’s aviation future as the service prepares to develop follow-ons to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas,” Mabus said.
For example, as good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly.”

To address the emerging role unmanned weapon systems, Mabus announced a new deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems and a new Navy staff position — alongside warfare directorates like surface and air warfare — N-99.

The positions were created “so that all aspects of unmanned – in all domains – over, on and under the sea and coming from the sea to operate on land – will be coordinated and championed,” Mabus said.

..

If the F-35 is going to be “the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly” , why the fuck do we need to spend another $1 trillion dollars for this not-ready-for-prime-time POS:

a) has been on the drawing board for over 14 years
b) has triggered Nunn-McCurdy at least twice
c) has (very) short legs
d) is underpowered
e) needs a half-million dollar brain bucket (helmet)
f) adds nothing to the combat mix
g) and costs at least $300+ million

The US Navy has lost its way.

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/15/navy-newport-news-seeking-ways-to-cut-carrier-costs-introduce-more-competition

Navy, Newport News Seeking Ways to Cut Carrier Costs, Introduce More Competition
By: Megan Eckstein
April 15, 2015 4:09 PM

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said the Navy is making good progress learning lessons from first-in-class Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier and lowering costs for the follow-on John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), but he said more innovative ideas might be needed to introduce competition and continue to cut out cost.

Asked during the service chiefs panel Monday at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2015 Exposition whether he was confident the aircraft carrier program could meet its congressionally mandated cost caps by identifying and implementing lessons learned, Greenert responded: “I am not personally so confident that I can declare here just based on lessons learned. But on the other hand, what I am confident of, because we’re seeing it, that we are learning lessons.”

“We are learning that you need detailed design before you should start construction because designing and constructing at the same time on such a huge project is inefficient at best. That you have to purchase, you have to have an efficient and effective way to purchase materials and define that as quickly as possible so that the buyer – which there are so many subvendors involved here – can get on with what they’re doing.”

Greenert said he meets regularly with Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley to discuss ways to not only meet the cost caps for Kennedy but also how to bring further innovation and cost-savings into the program.

..

The lessons learned:

a) accept an UNFINISHED aircraft carrier for $13 billion dollars to avoid ANOTHER Nunn-McCurdy 'ding' (another two years before it's done)
b) lay the keel on the next Ford-class aircraft carrier and see how much that one costs.

..

The Littoral Combat Ship is another Navy fuck up.

https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rl33741_20110429.pdf

CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program:Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

~snip~

Unit Procurement Cost Cap

LCS sea frames procured in FY2010 and subsequent years are subject to a unit procurement cost cap. The legislative history of the cost cap is as follows:
•
The cost cap was originally established by Section 124 of the FY2006 defense authorization act (H.R. 1815/P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006). Under this provision, the fifth and sixth ships in the class were to cost no more than $220 million each, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors.
•
The cost cap was amended by Section 125 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008). This provision amended the cost cap to $460 million per ship, with no adjustments for inflation, and applied the cap to all LCSs procured in FY2008 and subsequent years.
•
The cost cap was amended again by Section 122 of the FY2009 defense authorization act (S. 3001/P.L. 110-417 of October 14, 2008). This provision deferred the implementation of the cost cap by two years, applying it to all LCSs procured in FY2010 and subsequent years.
•
The cost cap was amended again by Section 121(c) and (d) of the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009). The provision adjusted the cost cap to $480 million per ship, excluded certain costs from being counted against the $480 million cap, included provisions for adjusting the $480 million figure over time to take inflation and other events into account, and permitted the Secretary of the Navy to waive (see below) the cost cap under certain conditions. The Navy states that after taking inflation into account, the $480 million figure equates, as of December 2010, to $538 million.


Section 121(d)(1) states that the Secretary of the Navy may waive the cost cap if:

(A) the Secretary provides supporting data and certifies in writing to the congressional defense
committees that—
(i) the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of the vessel-
(I) is in the best interest of the United States; and
(II) is affordable, within the context of the annual naval vessel construction plan required by section 231 of title 10, United States Code; and
(ii) the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of at least one other vessel authorized by subsection (a) has been or is expected to be less than $480,000,000; and
(B) a period of not less than 30 days has expired following the date on which such certification and data are submitted to the congressional defense committees.

The first two Littoral Combat Ships cost around $1.5 billion. I can hardly wait to hear the next excuse why .....................