F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Sea Toby]

If you think that 5000-6000 JSF will be builded, I have some stocks in an investment firm, I would like to sell you

When the US government's CBO and GAO continue to support buying F-35s, well two of the most influential US government watchdogs are still on the band wagon. That was not so with the F-22 program...

Oh, I am sure if you surf the web you will find some organization opposed to buying F-35s, as some organizations have a bone to pick and have different agendas. But none of them will have more clout than the two organizations I noted...

 

[Palnatoke]

Who said 6000 JSF? Either way it does not detract from sea tobys fundamental comment which has been time and time again consistent with what the current consortium members have signed up for:

That LM originally based their business case on a scenario of 5k-6k possible sales.
By now, many nations (f.ex. NL, DK) base their buisness case on 4500-5000 sales.

As I read the US budget, there is currently funding for at most 1700-1800 US planes - and that's if the project doesn't continue with cost overruns. Where the last, say, 2800-3200 planes are going to get sold is, poetically speaking, "blowing in the wind".

But what do I know?

 

[Palnatoke]

When the US government's CBO and GAO continue to support buying F-35s, well two of the most influential US government watchdogs are still on the band wagon. That was not so with the F-22 program...

Oh, I am sure if you surf the web you will find some organization opposed to buying F-35s, as some organizations have a bone to pick and have different agendas. But none of them will have more clout than the two organizations I noted...

As in my above post, look at the US funding. Then think how large the market for new fighters are world wide - given the competion from other planes, including older US systems like F16,F15 and S/hornets.

 

[Grand Danois]

That LM originally based their business case on a scenario of 5k-6k possible sales.
By now, many nations (f.ex. NL, DK) base their buisness case on 4500-5000 sales.

As I read the US budget, there is currently funding for at most 1700-1800 US planes - and that's if the project doesn't continue with cost overruns. Where the last, say, 2800-3200 planes are going to get sold is, poetically speaking, "blowing in the wind".

But what do I know?

As you read the US budget? You mean like that Dutch hack job reads the budget? LOL !

 

[Palnatoke]

As you read the US budget? You mean like that Dutch hack job reads the budget? LOL !

There are posted budget items, not by me, above in this thread - if they are falsums ofcourse I have little to go for.

Btw, I think you are quite rude, if you can't manage a more sober tone there is really no reason for you to reply to my threads.

 

[Grand Danois]

There are posted budget items, not by me, above in this thread - if they are falsums ofcourse I have little to go for.

Btw, I think you are quite rude, if you can't manage a more sober tone there is really no reason for you to reply to my threads.

The "only funding for" 1700-1800 number you got from the Dutch report and not the US budget. Is this correct?

And that's not a good place to get data.

 

[Palnatoke]

The "only funding for" 1700-1800 number you got from the Dutch report and not the US budget. Is this correct?

And that's not a good place to get data.

No, that is not correct, and this is getting tedious.

 

[Grand Danois]

No, that is not correct, and this is getting tedious.

OK, where did you get it?

edit: should we take it to PM?

 

[Palnatoke]

OK, where did you get it?

edit: should we take it to PM?

Here

The latest unclassified link to FY 2010..... Notice with increased production the price has fallen even with these few aircraft being bought. We aren't anywhere near full production and won't be for several years. Read the several charts. Click on each chart to increase their reading size.

The F-35 and the USAF fy2010 budget ELP Defens(c)e Blog

Thisisnotatooshortmessage

 

[Grand Danois]

Here



Thisisnotatooshortmessage

Yes, that budget item says 83.3 million USD average in then year dollars or c. 62 million USD (FY2008), further I note that the "to-comp" says 79.973 million USD in then-year dollars which is about 60 million USD (2008) - this is the average partner price per unit.

For the entire project 298 billion then year dollars is expected to be spent, total, with an average US procurement cost of all types, A/B/C, LRIP/FRP of c. 100 million then-year USD or 75 million USD (2008).

The GAO, CBO, DOD, JPO are all consistent about this.

 

[Palnatoke]

Note the revised budget (of may). If I were a customer I would be worried.

 

[Grand Danois]

Note the revised budget (of may). If I were a customer I would be worried.

And what should I read from this?

 

[Palnatoke]

I have written a number of remarks above, that you can look at, if interested.

 

[Grand Danois]

I have written a number of remarks above, that you can look at, if interested.

Could I get you to nail your colors to the mast on this particular one? Why do you think there are posts missing from the proposed budget items?

My take is that they are awaiting specific numbers to be ordered this time (production is to be accelerated) and thus have not updated long term numbers.

 

[Palnatoke]

Could I get you to nail your colors to the mast on this particular one? Why do you think there are posts missing from the proposed budget items?

My take is that they are awaiting specific numbers to be ordered this time (production is to be accelerated) and thus have not updated long term numbers.

Edit: "Why do you think there are posts missing from the proposed budget items?"
I don't

Anyway:
For details look above.
But f.ex. notice how the forecasted budget varies from year to year. When you have significant problems in estimating FY2010 from FY2008 (see the may 09 budget) it's an open question how they can estimate, say, FY2020?

You can in the old budget (feb 08) see the total budget, and you can see what the wpn sys cost per unit has to be for the budgetted number of some 1800 planes to be realised without extra funding. This budget (feb 08) is allready revised in may 09, in which you can see that the forecasted reductions in cost didn't matrialize that year.

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

That and other things, leads me to question the actual numbers of F35s to be builded. And if this number becomes low, then the plane will get expensive meassured per plane, which will make less foreign sales likely (The US is going to spend their budget, but other nationals might opt' out, or choose not to opt' in).

 

[Grand Danois]

Edit: "Why do you think there are posts missing from the proposed budget items?"
I don't

Anyway:
For details look above.
But f.ex. notice how the forecasted budget varies from year to year. When you have significant problems in estimating FY2010 from FY2008 (see the may 09 budget) it's an open question how they can estimate, say, FY2020?

You can in the old budget (feb 08) see the total budget, and you can see what the wpn sys cost per unit has to be for the budgetted number of some 1800 planes to be realised without extra funding. This budget (feb 08) is allready revised in may 09, in which you can see that the forecasted reductions in cost didn't matrialize that year.

If you read the rest of the item, where it has been specified, you'll notice that it is the non-recurring costs that makes the WSC behave that way. This is why WSC is not representative in this case for forecasting procurement costs.

Notice how the recurring costs are plummeting!!!

http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/2010budgetusaf-f35-2a.gif

 

[Palnatoke]

If you read the rest of the item, where it has been specified, you'll notice that it is the non-recurring costs that makes the WSC behave that way. This is why WSC is not representative in this case for forecasting procurement costs.

Notice how the recurring costs are plummeting!!!

http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/2010budgetusaf-f35-2a.gif

I don't share that view entirely (expecially it's not the non-recurring costs). I do think that it's noteworthy that the reduction in some of the recuring costs are closely matched by increases in other "costs".

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't share that view entirely (expecially it's not the non-recurring costs). I do think that it's noteworthy that the reduction in some of the recuring costs are closely matched by increases in other "costs".

I do note that the Dutch price for a test is consistent with the recurring cost of a F-35A in 2010.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I don't share that view entirely (expecially it's not the non-recurring costs). I do think that it's noteworthy that the reduction in some of the recuring costs are closely matched by increases in other "costs".

Do you think that they (LM, USAF, USMC, USN, domestic and foreign manufactureres) are all in collusion to shift the costs around to hide the "cost" of the F-35?

Watch X-Files re-runs much?

You have to remember that all the costs related to the USAF F-35A are included in that one page (WSC), including standing up of the expansion of Eglin AFB and all the training supplies that entails, expansion of manufacturing capabilities, tech manuals, etc.

Also, that page from ELP is only the USAF F-35s, not the USN & USMC. The total planned F-35 purchase for the USA is 2443. Add the partner nations (not Japan or Israel) and the total is at 3173.