F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Grand Danois]

These numbers come from the latest GAO report (March 19) found here.

Here's the quick summary (see table on page 9):

Original baseline March 2007 Cost: $196.6 billion for 2,852 aircraft >Average procurement unit cost: $69 million

Year 2011 budget request: $273.3 billion for 2,443 aircraft > Average procurement unit cost: $112 million

Finally, the GAO estimates (see "Highlights on first page of report) that the current estimated investment will be $323 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft > 131 million per unit cost

Yes, this means that if it suffers more significant cost overruns, the F-35A will become as expensive, if not not more, than a Typhoon.

 

[fretburner]

Yes, this means that if it suffers more significant cost overruns, the F-35A will become as expensive, if not not more, than a Typhoon.

Which could also mean the F-15SE is going to be a lot more attractive to existing F-15 operators.

 

[jaffo4011]

Which could also mean the F-15SE is going to be a lot more attractive to existing F-15 operators.

or typhoons are......i would have thought that the quick availability of it and its multi role ability would be very attractive to potential buyers who currently operate f15's but need to upgrade soon.

 

[Todjaeger]

or typhoons are......i would have thought that the quick availability of it and its multi role ability would be very attractive to potential buyers who currently operate f15's but need to upgrade soon.

The problem with Typhoons is that the full multi-role capability has not (to my knowledge) been developed yet, that was planned for Tranche 3 aircraft. The RAF did do a modification programme to make some of their Tranche 2 aircraft multi-role, but that was done post-production. AFAIK there is some concern with completing development of a multi-role Typhoon because the UK/RAF has completed their obligations in terms of numbers of Typhoons ordered and do not currently have significant interest in ordering more.

-Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Report from danish defmin says that F-16 has enough remaining flight time left to soldier on another 2-4 years. As consequence government will shift type selection and acquisition two years to the right (but acquisition in 2018-2022 instead of 2016-2020. Extension of more than 2 years not recommended due to enignes needing replacement.

 

[Vivendi]

Report from danish defmin says that F-16 has enough remaining flight time left to soldier on another 2-4 years. As consequence government will shift type selection and acquisition two years to the right (but acquisition in 2018-2022 instead of 2016-2020. Extension of more than 2 years not recommended due to enignes needing replacement.

That's very interesting.

Norway decided already in 2008! One of the main arguments for deciding so early was that by deciding early Norwegian industry as well as LM would know that F-35 will be the future Norwegian a/c -- the hope was that this would make it easier to negotiate deals for Norwegian industry.

I am not sure if that actually happened. AFAIK very few deals have been announced in Norway, and probably not more than in Denmark (perhaps even less?).

Has this been discussed in Denmark? Does the Danish industry see it as a disadvantage that decision has been shifted? Or does it not matter to them?

 

[Grand Danois]

Industry - they do have an opinion. The companies expecting orders from the JSF would want a decision (selecting the JSF) as soon as possible. Everyone else (mostly) wants it to be SH or GNG, seeing the acquisition money as regional stimulus money.

Outside of industry it's a matter of buying an aircraft that fits reqs, which in DK context weighs more heavily than industry concerns.

Addendum: The extra flight hours on the fleet appeared from reducing the fleet of operational aircraft from 48 to 30.

 

[luccloud]

The F-35 aint doomed, the JSF project is simply to big to fail, meaning they now got to trow money Lockheed Martins way everytime some sort of new issue has been found.

The F-35 will perhaps in the future become some sort of godlike wonderplane, but it will find it hard to fill it's position as an airplane for the masses....

It's not really too big to fail, but more like there are no substitute. Unless the USN want to keep using their F18 for the next 2 decades, F35 is the only option for them since the navy variant for F22 canceled long ago.

Also, ppl seem to forget that current estimate didn't include export sales to Japan, SK, Singapore which is really only a matter of times.

 

[jaffo4011]

The problem with Typhoons is that the full multi-role capability has not (to my knowledge) been developed yet, that was planned for Tranche 3 aircraft. The RAF did do a modification programme to make some of their Tranche 2 aircraft multi-role, but that was done post-production. AFAIK there is some concern with completing development of a multi-role Typhoon because the UK/RAF has completed their obligations in terms of numbers of Typhoons ordered and do not currently have significant interest in ordering more.

-Cheers

surely tho,the f35 and upcoming f15 versions also have tranche type upgrades ongoing before they are fully up to date and operational to the same standard?

i presume the f35 wont be completely multi role straight out of the box esp?

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 will be completely multirole when it goes IOC for the USAF and USN (Block 3). All sensors will be integrated and have full A2G and A2A functionality. The EOTS, EODAS, radar, RWR, and off-board sensors will all works and be integrated.

Later blocks will add weapons and make the missions easier, but the F-35 will be able to complete any of it's planned missions with Block3.

 

[Grand Danois]

sar's out

F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) - The PAUC increased 57.2% and the APUC increased 57.2% to the original APB to reflect the average unit price for the restructured JSF program, as estimated by the OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)-led independent Joint Estimate Team (JET). Specifically, in 2001, the average procurement unit cost for the JSF was estimated at $50 million base year 2002 dollars or $59 million in base year 2010 dollars. This is now estimated to fall within a range of $79 million to $95 million in base year 2002 dollars or $93 million to $112 million in base year 2010 dollars. This is a 57% to 89% increase from the original baseline. The reasons for the Unit Cost Growth included larger-than-planned development costs driven by Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant weight growth and a longer forecasted development schedule; increase in labor and overhead rates; degradation of airframe commonality; lower production quantities; increases in commodity prices (particularly titanium); major subcontractor cost growth; and the impact of revised inflation indices. In addition, factors that were driven by substantially higher contractor change traffic (i.e., changes in design not resulting from changes in requirements or capability), which led to increased engineering and software staffing; extended manufacturing span times; and delayed delivery of aircraft to flight test, led to a further slip of the development and flight test program. The Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT) recommended that the program adopt a somewhat flatter and smoother ramp. The JET II accepted this revised ramp and then moved it later in time in accordance with the delayed progress of the development program to balance manufacturing, schedule, and cost risk. Overall, no JSF reviews to-date (JET I from 2008, JET II , or the IMRT) have discovered any fundamental technological or manufacturing problems with the JSF program, or any change in the aircraft’s projected military capabilities.

Defense.gov News Release: Department of Defense Announces Selected Acquisition Reports

OK, all of it known, but summarized here. I like that last line. Anyways didn't expect I would have to go dig it up myself.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Lockheed released a 2009 Year in Review F-35 vid.

I had to split this in two pieces due to Youtube's 10 minute limit.

Part 1 of 2:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFpnkiDgeCQ"]YouTube- F-35 2009 Year in Review 1 of 2[/nomedia]

Part 2 of 2:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl0n8Wm8XRg"]YouTube- F-35 2009 Year in Review 2 of 2[/nomedia]

 

[djpav]

Well, back to the soaring costs for the F-35, a new article claims costs could "swell to more than $150 million when revised estimates are completed in June".

I agree that the F-35 can not be canceled at this stage. It's too late for that and there are no alternatives. However it looks increasingly likely that it will end up being built in fewer numbers than originally planned vis a vis the F22, and its export potential will be severely crippled -possibly - to a full stop. Even the Israelis who are practically getting them for free are having second thoughts.

Sorry but I can not post the link - the system here won't let me post it as I have <10 posts. Just look on the McClatchy website for "Defense Dept. says F-35 fighter program's costs to significantly rise".

 

[B3LA]

...and that's only a low estimate....

If we really want to indulge in dark thoughts
we can read Winslow T. Wheelers predictions :

How Much Will Each F-35 Cost?

Winslow marks up the F-35 to $201 million now, but
eventually rising to $250-300 millions in the end...


The Center for Defense Information are supposed to
neutrally look out for US best interest, right ?

 

[Grand Danois]

...and that's only a low estimate....

If we really want to indulge in dark thoughts
we can read Winslow T. Wheelers predictions :

How Much Will Each F-35 Cost?

Winslow marks up the F-35 to $201 million now, but
eventually rising to $250-300 millions in the end...


The Center for Defense Information are supposed to
neutrally look out for US best interest, right ?

The CDI hates the F-35 and the F22A as well. You can read earlier in this thread of how they would like things to be. To paraphrase: everything that has as much as a radar is goldplated and unneeded. They carry zero weight on the issue, are not neutral and go under the label "the fighter mafia". Google Sprey, Riccioni and Wheeler.

They would just have the PAUC to be the figure discussed at hearings, not APUC.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, back to the soaring costs for the F-35, a new article claims costs could "swell to more than $150 million when revised estimates are completed in June".

I agree that the F-35 can not be canceled at this stage. It's too late for that and there are no alternatives. However it looks increasingly likely that it will end up being built in fewer numbers than originally planned vis a vis the F22, and its export potential will be severely crippled -possibly - to a full stop. Even the Israelis who are practically getting them for free are having second thoughts.

Sorry but I can not post the link - the system here won't let me post it as I have <10 posts. Just look on the McClatchy website for "Defense Dept. says F-35 fighter program's costs to significantly rise".

Learning from B3LA that the this article is Sprey-Wheeler sourced, then I can better understand the confused flurry of apples-oranges APUC/PAUC/BY/TY comparisons*.

There are no new data.

EDIT: I'll wait for the official revised estimates cometh June before passing comment on the insidedefense story.

Here's the link: Cost estimate for F-35 to soar, Pentagon says | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Busine...

*They both carry the same structure in the text and PAUC over APUC in the beginning paragraph. Possibly the journo had just read the CDI piece.

Addendum: Using F-22 data for learning curve cost estimates is a poor method, as the F-22 was supposed to be built optimally with MYPs of 40-60 jets a year, not 20-24 and MYP/SYPs. If the former had been the case, then it would be representative. Production rates means everything.

 

[SpudmanWP]

If the F-35 numbers are reduced over the lifetime, the ABSOLUTE worst thing that they can do is reduce the per-year build numbers. This is what caused the F-22 prices to soar.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Is the cost for the F-35 really going to soar to $388 billion?

 

[Grand Danois]

Is the cost for the F-35 really going to soar to $388 billion?

328 at the moment. and it's then year dollars.

 

[swerve]

328 at the moment. and it's then year dollars.

To remind everyone: 'then year dollars' value all future (i.e. most) spending at hypothetical future prices.

The US budget office makes an assumption about long-term inflation, & the DoD & other spending departments use that in their projections. This has various implications. For example, if you decide to postpone purchases, it puts up the average price in 'then year' dollars.

[Edit]
It values past spending in the prices prevailing when it was spent.