Tanker, F-35 and Korea Transfix USAF

Could bad luck be coming in threes for the U.S. Air Force? This month, officials were sacked from the tanker-replacement program, concern grew about another slip in the F-35’s initial operating date, and South Korea is enduring the worst attack by North Korea in more than 50 years. So far, two heads have rolled in the tanker program after two documents involved in the competition were sent to the wrong company. The unidentified employees—who were members of the program office, but not the program manager—have been replaced. An investigation has ensured that the competition is still fair and that no “proposed pricing data” were involved, says the Air Force’s chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz. Each single-sheet report involved an efficiency assessment of either the Boeing or EADS candidate aircraft. The study was conducted to determine how many of each tanker were required to fulfill a series of air-refueling scenarios. “Notwithstanding what was reported [in the press], there was no offer or proposed pricing data on that CD,” Schwartz says. “Both contractors have the same information [about the other].” During the last two weeks, Air Force and independent teams have reviewed what happened in the document mix-up. “Over the last 24 hours or so, we’ve endeavored to [ensure] that we have a level playing field between the two offers [from Boeing and EADS] in respect to the information that was disclosed,” Schwartz says. “Clearly this was a profound disappointment. As a result of the inquiries, those individuals responsible will be held accountable. Two [people] have been removed from the program as a result.” However, the mix-up has had no impact on the delay of a source selection into 2011. “The key thing is to de-couple the notion that the inadvertent disclosure had anything to do with the timing on making source selection,” Schwartz says. The decision has slid out of 2010 and is now slated for the “early part of January,” he adds. “It’s important that this source selection stand on its own and withstand scrutiny. Meanwhile, another new-generation aircraft—the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—is also causing problems. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting was held last week and another is due soon. The presentation was the Navy’s preliminary technical baseline review that involved a look at production status and schedules as well as test data and progress on software engineering. Another DAB will finalize inputs for the Fiscal 2012 budget. “With respect to the A-model [USAF] aircraft, my assessment is that it is ahead on test points and flying hours; software stability has been good, and the structure has experienced no failures or surprises,” says Schwartz. However, there was a big caveat to his assessment. “There are some issues with respect to timing on software development,” he says. “We don’t have a complete understanding yet of whether that will affect the new, predicted IOC [initial operating capability] of April 2016. I’m still concerned about the schedule—a little less on technical matters, [but] software appears to be a potential pacing item.” Program delays could ripple throughout the U.S. military according to a new Government Accountability Office report. Researchers contend that currently projected F-35 production will allow the force of 2,000 fighters mandated by the Quadrennial Defense Review to fall to roughly 1,800 over the next 18 years. Schwartz disputes the analysis, arguing that there are options and workaround such as structural and avionics upgrades to extend the operational life of Block 40/50 F-16s and thereby ensure that the U.S. can execute the national military strategy. “A-model F-35 performance has indicated it is the best of the lot,” Schwartz declares. “[But,] if the aircraft aren’t ready to be put on the ramp, we’ll work alternatives. There is a related fighter force structure strategy that will accompany the F-35 production information in the Fiscal 2012 budget plan.” USAF’s third and perhaps thorniest conundrum is the crisis on the Korean Peninsula: South Korean forces, but not those of the U.S., are on higher alert. “Clearly we have substantial USAF assets in a number of locations both on the Korean peninsula as well as Kadena [AB on Okinawa], mainland Japan, Guam and farther east,” Schwartz says. “Those assets are ready . . . to be used if required. The North Koreans have undertaken over time a number of provocations. Combined Forces Command in Korea is monitoring the situation carefully and can be augmented as required. It’s significant that the [South Korean air force] is in the lead as we speak, with as many as eight F-15s flying combat air patrol. The U.S. is on a normal alert posture. That’s not necessarily true for [the South Koreans].”