F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[JWCook]

I doubt I'll get thanked for this but:-

The JSF is.... Unaffordable.

Finally the ‘ballooning’ of cost is far from being as significant as detractors make out. Additions in cost for the development program don’t apply to Australia, we’ve already paid our slice. Much of the addition in cost to the production programs is via inflation and for Australia is somewhat offset by significant increase in the value of our foreign exchange.

The only significant problem the F-35 has inflicted is a delay to the schedule. But this is only around five years. Obviously no one would like this delay but it’s not the end of the world.

Procurement Chief Ashton Carter said

The Pentagon estimates the total cost of operating the U.S. military's F-35s through 2065 at more than $1 trillion, and that's the program's biggest long-term challenge, a bevy of top DoD officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19.
"Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft has doubled in real terms," procurement Chief Ashton Carter said. "That's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. That's unacceptable. That's unaffordable."

And although operating expenses won't really take off for some years, cost-saving efforts must begin. "Nobody is going to pay that bill," Carter said. "It's way too high."

LOL. One guy says “I think…” the other guy says “we know…” who should you believe?

Who Indeed..

I don't mind robust debate but I did take exception to the verbal lambasting you deem fit to dish out to me for daring to bring up the JSF affordability, the people who are holding the purse strings are now also questioning it.

When I suggested the program was struggling you said "Anything else I want to make up"

With that in mind will you be making public any correspondance to Mr Carter where you tell him he's making it all up and everything is fine and dandy, and well worth the wait and cost.

Will you accept what I have maintained all along there are some fundamental problems with the JSF and its program or do you wish to continue to modify your credability rating towards zero?

The JSF is facing a big hurdle, the money is drying up, Time is precious and the old engineering addage of "Quick, Cheap or Good, Which one don't you want" still holds true.

Anyway back to the interesting bit - what can they do? If they cut the numbers its a death spiral (It may be already happening), They can't stretch the program anymore, I feel the only corner to cut now is capability, what does everyone else think? does this seem reasonable?.

Cheers

 

[jack412]

how would you like to put up another link showing this is wrong, said by many people.
It will save me doing it and show everyone you are capable of seeing both sides of a story

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't mind robust debate but I did take exception to the verbal lambasting you deem fit to dish out to me for daring to bring up the JSF affordability, the people who are holding the purse strings are now also questioning it.

When I suggested the program was struggling you said "Anything else I want to make up"

With that in mind will you be making public any correspondance to Mr Carter where you tell him he's making it all up and everything is fine and dandy, and well worth the wait and cost.

Will you accept what I have maintained all along there are some fundamental problems with the JSF and its program or do you wish to continue to modify your credability rating towards zero?

The JSF is facing a big hurdle, the money is drying up, Time is precious and the old engineering addage of "Quick, Cheap or Good, Which one don't you want" still holds true.

Anyway back to the interesting bit - what can they do? If they cut the numbers its a death spiral (It may be already happening), They can't stretch the program anymore, I feel the only corner to cut now is capability, what does everyone else think? does this seem reasonable?.

Cheers

And do you have information on the projected through-life costs for any other fighter programmes through until 2065? Given that is roughly twice the typical operational service life of a fighter jet, and that in addition to just normal costs for the aircraft, estimates need to be made about things like fuel consumption and cost of fuel over time, very slight changes and over long periods of time cause large changes in the total estimate.

Take fuel costs for instance. Where I live, the price of petrol has climbed rather rapidly, with prices having risen ~6% in the last three weeks, or nearly 48% in the last six months. Now if some of the estimates had previously been made with one set of assumptions on fuel costings, and is now being made with a completely different set which reflect a 48% vs. normal ~3.21% inflation rate, that is going to have rather different results, particularly when estimating the results towards the end of a 50-year service life.

Now, in the near-term do there appear to be any significant increases in cost for Full Rate Initial Production aircraft, or throughlife and support costs for the first two decades of F-35 service? If the answer to these questions is "No," then the concern some have about the F-35 costs would appear to be rather unfounded, or perhaps more accurately, are not being held in the correct context. In other words, stating that fighter "x" is a better choice for the RAAF instead of the F-35 because it has a total service life cost of an amount perhaps 2/3rds that of the F-35, but can only reasonably serve for half the time an F-35 can, would actually mean that the fighter "x" would almost certainly be a more expensive option. In order to attempt to accurately compare such different types of fighter replacement programmes, the cost estimates which would be submitted for consideration of fighter "x" would also need to include cost estimates for whatever equipment would enter service to replace fighter "x" at least until the time the cost estimates for the F-35 cover. Otherwise one is comparing apples and oranges.

Incidentally, it does become very tiresome to have to deal, repeatedly, with people using dissimilar information to argue for or against a certain platform or capability. It becomes particularly onerous when the people engaging in such unfavourable comparisons should really know better, and the use of such tactics is not about reaching an accurate assessment, but swaying popular opinion without regard to accuracy.

-Cheers

 

[JWCook]

Now, in the near-term do there appear to be any significant increases in cost for Full Rate Initial Production aircraft, or throughlife and support costs for the first two decades of F-35 service? If the answer to these questions is "No," then the concern some have about the F-35 costs would appear to be rather unfounded, or perhaps more accurately, are not being held in the correct context.
-Cheers

The assesment is that the JSF is unaffordable if they continue as thay are at present, I'm assuming that any simple explanations that would make the situation seem better would have already been applied by the people who are tasked to cost the JSF.

It would be picked apart By Mr Burbage in seconds. however the shoe is on the other foot where cost assumptions over the last several years from the Manufacturer has never been realised, their credabilityy has approached zero for both schedule and price.

My question remains what to do now, where would you cut to bring the costs to an affordable level, my thoughts are that capability is the only variable left to play with but I might be missing something.:idea2

I just thought I'd add that I would cancell the STOVL first then see how it went.

Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My question remains what to do now, where would you cut to bring the costs to an affordable level, my thoughts are that capability is the only variable left to play with but I might be missing something.:idea2

The “1 trillion” is in relation to through life costs and is a very rough estimate. The cost increase ranges from everything to do with increase cost of spare parts via inflation in aviation metals cost, fuel cost and estimates of additional maintenance cost based on experience to date. Much of it is via inflation which is something everyone has to bear. But practical evidence with the F-22 and B-2 demonstrates that cost for maintaining stealth aircraft dramatically reduces during life due to insertion of new technology.

It’s no surprise that the usual suspects are treating this with more hysteria. Cost growth adjusted for inflation is still in the 20-25% margin. That the price for all important aviation inputs like titanium, jet fuel and the like has skyrocketed is not the fault of the F-35.

I don't mind robust debate but I did take exception to the verbal lambasting you deem fit to dish out to me for daring to bring up the JSF affordability, the people who are holding the purse strings are now also questioning it.

You deserve that and more because of the inconsistent, misinformed, will fully ignorant twaddle you post here drive by style.

 

[jack412]

The question was asked and In the latest senate hearing,

re 1 trillion, Carter says Sen Mark Begich's guesstimate of 30-50% "is in the right ballpark - it's not a small amount

In answer Carter says estimated $1 trillion sustainment cost "is unbelievable for two reasons: it's huge, and you should not believe it, it's a parametric forecast based on the information available. We have not begun to manage it. No-one is going to pay that cost."

here are some of the written statements
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Burbage 05-19-11.pdf
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Sullivan 05-19-11.pdf
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Carter-Van Buren-Venlet 05-19-11.pdf
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Fox 05-19-11.pdf
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05 May/Gilmore 05-19-11.pdf

I havent seen a transcript of the hearing but here is some from the AV blog
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

[Jezza]

at which point do you consider the alternatives?
there must be a plan b,c,d

 

[JWCook]

Sen Mark Begich's guesstimate of 30-50% "is in the right ballpark - it's not a small amounthttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5e1527c9-363e-4811-9ee1-bf39c2806cd1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

I understand its a rough estimate and as such I also understand it could be lower, but by the same reasoning it could also be higher.

So the question is how to save 30%-50% on sustainment costs, the easiest answer is to cut the numbers from 2400 to 1200.

I may be pessimistic but I can't see those figures being reached by shaving a bit here and there, those sort of figures require a more robust response, so whats in the firing line.


Cheers

 

[jack412]

nar, I'm finished with the O&S, it's guessed at 20% more than a f-16 by SAR 2010, when they have enough data they will give a firm cost, I can wait

I see you didnt find this worthy of quoting
"is unbelievable for two reasons: it's huge, and you should not believe it, it's a parametric forecast based on the information available. We have not begun to manage it. No-one is going to pay that cost."

shouldnt you be back with the rafale boys defending the typhoon to the indians ?

 

[JWCook]

"is unbelievable for two reasons: it's huge, and you should not believe it, it's a parametric forecast based on the information available. We have not begun to manage it. No-one is going to pay that cost."

What is meant by that is "no one will pay it".

i.e not having the JSF at anyprice, something has to be done, the Parametric forcast is exactly that a forcast from the present available data, they will now try to manage it down to an acceptable level, but as I have stated thats not going to be anywhere near easy.

<Jezza> The Dutch are looking into plan B (Gripen or even UCAV), the Japenese are reported to be dropping the F-35 from their F-4 replacement comp, so the options are out there, all they need is a little shove.

OK I'm off to defend the Typhoon against the Rafale fan boys as suggested, :duel:roll rather that watch the JSF implode all by itself.

Cheers

 

[Scorpion82]

And do you have information on the projected through-life costs for any other fighter programmes through until 2065? Given that is roughly twice the typical operational service life of a fighter jet,

You aren't suggesting that the F-35s introduced now or in the near future will be operated for such a long time, are you? IIRC the F-35 is designed for an 8000 h service life, it certainly could be extended I guess, but the aircraft will be in production until the mid 2030s according current plans. And just as a reminder MiG-21s and F-4s are still flying and they were first introduced around 1960. Thus the design is some 50+ years old and some of these aircraft may soldier on until late this decade, which translates into a ~60 years long career! But I doubt you'll find any operational F-4 or MiG-21 with a 1960 built date, these aircraft operated are all younger models from the 1970s or possibly ~1980 in some cases. The same will true for other designs such as the F-15 or F-16 with both types still being in production they might be in service until 2030-2040 albeit in much smaller quantities. To cut a long story short an F-35 isn't necessarily any longer in service than other types wrt the time span it will serve!

 

[rip]

You aren't suggesting that the F-35s introduced now or in the near future will be operated for such a long time, are you? IIRC the F-35 is designed for an 8000 h service life, it certainly could be extended I guess, but the aircraft will be in production until the mid 2030s according current plans. And just as a reminder MiG-21s and F-4s are still flying and they were first introduced around 1960. Thus the design is some 50+ years old and some of these aircraft may soldier on until late this decade, which translates into a ~60 years long career! But I doubt you'll find any operational F-4 or MiG-21 with a 1960 built date, these aircraft operated are all younger models from the 1970s or possibly ~1980 in some cases. The same will true for other designs such as the F-15 or F-16 with both types still being in production they might be in service until 2030-2040 albeit in much smaller quantities. To cut a long story short an F-35 isn't necessarily any longer in service than other types wrt the time span it will serve!

Gentlemen, costs as we all understand are not unimportant things and this is not a new concern. This has always been true and not just under the current more restricted economic environment we are facing. But I respectfully contend that projections about whatever future costs might or might not be, in a world environment which has not yet arrived, that this concern cannot be taken too seriously within the decision making process of which we are now currently engaged. This is true about the f-35 or any other large procurement project where most of the design and development costs have already been paid. The time to get out cheap is now long passed.

The future holds many unknowns so the most important idea for us to pursue now at this time is to retain the ability to adapt as future circumstances. The first priority is to give the future decision makers’ good and safe options. This is especially true for aircraft that will be flown someday by people who are not as yet born. Thirty to fifty years is a long time to have much confidence in any cost projections and they should not be given too much credit.

Costs will be only one of determining factors of how many planes will be made, when they are built, what mix of types are eventually constructed, and how long they will remain in service as well if or when they will be eventually be upgraded or replaced but most of these decisions will be made by leaders which are not even come upon the political or military as of yet. It will be theirs to decide and not ours.

Assuming that we will continue to live in a world where military force is the final arbitrator of national disputes the primary driver will always be what is the perceived needs of a country has to maintain its security. There are rich man’s strategies, poor man’s strategies and for the up and comers a mix of the two but the more military power you have at you ready disposal, the more political options you can exploit which can prevent or contain war. It is the weaker country who feels that they must strike first.

What we should be discussing, does the F-35 meet our future needs or can they be met in a better and different way? The design is mostly fixed now, most of the development costs have already been paid, some are already being built, (How many, when and to whom they will go is an open question) but do they fulfill the security requirements is the real question. And that question can only be answered by also questioning what are the real alternatives within this time frame. I personally do not see a better alternative but I am open to suggestions.

 

[Swampfox157]

I have yet to see anything indicating a low-level penetration ability a la F-15E, so I'm recommending a 'Strike Lightning'-type development. This could use an APG-77 with APG-82 features, as well as LANTIRN capability (if the JSF lacks similar internal avionics) and possibly a second seat. I also wouldn't rule out an extended wet wing or CFTs to increase range, creating a 'regional bomber'. Finally, a LO ordnance pod for GBU-39s would be suitable, likely mounted almost flush to the wing to reduce returns off of the pylons. Alternately, further development of the FB-22 concept could be used, as a facet of the 2018 Bomber program.

 

[Scorpion82]

...

And all this has exactly what to do with what I stated (and what you quoted and replied to)?:unknown

 

[Todjaeger]

You aren't suggesting that the F-35s introduced now or in the near future will be operated for such a long time, are you? IIRC the F-35 is designed for an 8000 h service life, it certainly could be extended I guess, but the aircraft will be in production until the mid 2030s according current plans. And just as a reminder MiG-21s and F-4s are still flying and they were first introduced around 1960. Thus the design is some 50+ years old and some of these aircraft may soldier on until late this decade, which translates into a ~60 years long career! But I doubt you'll find any operational F-4 or MiG-21 with a 1960 built date, these aircraft operated are all younger models from the 1970s or possibly ~1980 in some cases. The same will true for other designs such as the F-15 or F-16 with both types still being in production they might be in service until 2030-2040 albeit in much smaller quantities. To cut a long story short an F-35 isn't necessarily any longer in service than other types wrt the time span it will serve!

No, I do not expect that FRIP F-35's manufactured in 2015 will still be in frontline USAF/USN/USMC service in 2065. However, it is distinctly possible that (and planned for) that the US will still have some F-35's still in service in 2065, and naturally these would most likely be from amongst the last production batches.

A 50 year frontline service life for a fighter aircraft is a bit longer than usually planned for a design, at least amongst top tier air arms. Most frontline designs only see ~25-30 years of service with the top tier air arms. Take the F-14 Tomcat for instance, that served (in various version) in the USN from ~1974 until 2005, or the F-4 Phantom II which entered US service in 1960, and the last version was retired from (ANG) service in 1996.

Now if the F-4 Phantom II had a similar US service life to that planned for the F-35, that would have meant that the US still had F-4 Phantoms in operational service (not counting QF target drones) until ~2010.

Which again points me back to the question of, "what other fighter design out there is expected to have a similar lifespan, and the associated projected operational costs and how does this compared to the planned operational service life cost of other fighter programmes, plus the developmental and service life costs for the replacement fighters of other designs?"

Again looking at something else like the Typhoon or Rafale, or even the Gripen/Gripen NG there is the acquisition and service life costs for the aircraft. Also, after ~2040 give or take a few years, these fighters will need replacement with some sort of follow-on fighter programme which will have developmental costs, amplified by the cost of inflation.

In order to truly determine if the projected through life cost for the F-35to 2065 is really 'out there', the projected F-35 cost would need to be compared to the acquistion and through life cost of a competing fighter, plus the expected developmental and through life costs for the successor design to the competitor until 2065 would need to be estimated and compared.

-Cheers

 

[rip]

No, I do not expect that FRIP F-35's manufactured in 2015 will still be in frontline USAF/USN/USMC service in 2065. However, it is distinctly possible that (and planned for) that the US will still have some F-35's still in service in 2065, and naturally these would most likely be from amongst the last production batches.

A 50 year frontline service life for a fighter aircraft is a bit longer than usually planned for a design, at least amongst top tier air arms. Most frontline designs only see ~25-30 years of service with the top tier air arms. Take the F-14 Tomcat for instance, that served (in various version) in the USN from ~1974 until 2005, or the F-4 Phantom II which entered US service in 1960, and the last version was retired from (ANG) service in 1996.

Now if the F-4 Phantom II had a similar US service life to that planned for the F-35, that would have meant that the US still had F-4 Phantoms in operational service (not counting QF target drones) until ~2010.

Which again points me back to the question of, "what other fighter design out there is expected to have a similar lifespan, and the associated projected operational costs and how does this compared to the planned operational service life cost of other fighter programmes, plus the developmental and service life costs for the replacement fighters of other designs?"

Again looking at something else like the Typhoon or Rafale, or even the Gripen/Gripen NG there is the acquisition and service life costs for the aircraft. Also, after ~2040 give or take a few years, these fighters will need replacement with some sort of follow-on fighter programme which will have developmental costs, amplified by the cost of inflation.

In order to truly determine if the projected through life cost for the F-35to 2065 is really 'out there', the projected F-35 cost would need to be compared to the acquistion and through life cost of a competing fighter, plus the expected developmental and through life costs for the successor design to the competitor until 2065 would need to be estimated and compared.

-Cheers

It is quite possible that the F-35 will have a fifty year operational lifespan and not because technology will not continue to advance. The F-35 will quite possibly be among the last wave of front line manned aircraft for primary tactical strike missions ever to be built. This is a very real possibility though certainly not a forgone conclusion but many think the next generation of front line attack aircraft will be remotely piloted or robotic of some kind.

Manned aircraft will not just disappear overnight but will be given less critical roles and be relegated to operations where “a man in the loop and on the seen” is far more critical than attacking fixed highly defended targets but missions more like close air support for ground troops. This is not a prediction but it is a real possibility. It would also mean that someday there might be F-35 J, K, L variants where the subsystems within the aircraft continue to advance but the basic air frame stays very much the same.

As an example the E-2A entered US Naval service in 1964 and the E-2D is now in testing for entering US Naval service, so there is president.

If so this would also mean that the B variant and its decedents might have the longest useful operational life.

 

[Todjaeger]

As an example the E-2A entered US Naval service in 1964 and the E-2D is now in testing for entering US Naval service, so there is president.

There is a significant amount of difference between a frontline combat aircraft and a combat support aircraft like the E-2, or the C-2 airframe which it is based off of.

Because of the nature of the aircraft roles (cargo/passenger transport or surveillance), there is not an aircraft requirement to carry ordnance, or be able to operate above certain speeds, or engage in violent manuevers. Instead there is a requirement to carry onboard cargo, passengers, or systems operators and their consoles. Also there is no significant speed requirement, and the only violent manuevers the aircraft are expected to undertake are carrier take offs and landings. In short, the design will most likely stay in service until there is no longer a need to provide such capabilities to a carrier, or future platform capabilities are sufficiently advanced and advantageous to trigger a new aircraft design.

One area which might see near-term replacement would be the surveillance role of the E-2 AWACS, which might be taken over by high-endurance UAVs operating from land bases and/or carriers and acting as AEW dismounts.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you look at what is driving up the cost the F-35 and in particular the cost of sustainment it is mostly inflation. The cost of jet fuel is now over $120 a barrel yet it was under $30 a barrel in 2002. If you want to know where the "trillion dollars" comes from there is a bloody good starting point. Critis of the F-35 seem to think it is responsible for the down turn in finances in Europe (why European partners are buying less F-35s) and now it is responisble for the increase in fuel price. But if they bother to then year dollar the price (taking away inflation) then the increase in cost is quite reasonable.

 

[JWCook]

If that is true Mr Gubler it makes you wonder why they have been ordered to look into alternatives and publically stated the program as unaffordable, that all seems a bit harsh just because of the price of oil.

I think the problem is being sold on a cheap fighter sales pitch and it turning out to be as expensive as the largest fighters the US operates.

may I give an example.

Press Release from 2005.

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 DESIGNED FOR LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY, REDUCED SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS | Lockheed Martin

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 DESIGNED FOR LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY, REDUCED SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

FORT WORTH, Texas, February 17th, 2005 -- With affordability as its cornerstone, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is designed to offer next-generation technologies and capabilities with a price tag comparable to that of current-generation multi-role fighters. Despite its affordable up-front price, the F-35 will deliver the greatest cost savings through long-term ownership.

“The F-35 will require less than half the people, parts and equipment to deploy rapidly anywhere in the world,” said Luke Gill, Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] vice president of F-35 JSF Global Sustainment. “The extraordinary range of the F-35 and its small logistics footprint cut airlift requirements in half and significantly reduce the need for aerial-refueling aircraft.”
Operation-and-support typically comprises two-thirds of a fighter’s ownership costs. The F-35’s designed-in efficiencies mean that those expenses will decline dramatically – by an estimated 20 to 30 percent.

“F-35 customers are not just buying an airplane. They’re also getting our commitment to provide an affordable, multi-mission strike capability for the better part of this century,” Gill said.

Remember we curtailed the Air 6000 competition and bought this aircraft directly as a result of these promises - (Can you get a refund?), did the "designed in" efficencies get designed back out?

Now if we question the above statements by LM as indeed any sensible person now would, why shouldn't we question the rest? I suppose its a bit late now that production aircraft are rolling off the line to design back in affordability?

Now It seems every time we get to the demonstration of any key points with the JSF it suddenly doesn't meet the promises.

So what happened in the last 6 years to get to where we are now, what drivers lead to it and will those same drivers bleed into the other promised areas of "Lethality". "Survivability". the now suspect "Supportability". and the now proven false "Affordability".

Food for thought indeed.

Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Food for thought indeed.

I’ve never considered straw and dirt food or repetitive, disjointed mumbling thought. But others may differ.

Your last post failed to provide any factual data about the issue at hand but a lot of long draw supposition and slander. No one in the US has been ordered to look at alternatives to the F-35 but some congressman have got all huffy as is their want. No one is rationally suggesting that the F-35’s inflation adjusted sustainment cost has ballooned.

Now with the massive increase in fuel costs (and aerospace materials) to date and into the future there has been a huge increase in estimated sustainment cost of the F-35 (fuels and spares). But this is cost shared across all aircraft in this time frame and as you link to a shorter legged aircraft (like Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet) would need considerable additional cost via IFR to meet F-35 range. And for the simple minded cost reduced by 30% via design efficiency but increased by 400% due to inflation results in a net gain of 280%. The only way to drive down cost would be to revert to 1940s technology: reciprocating engines, all aluminium airframes and low avionics content.