My original comments was
"Going up 7 billion in a week of comments scheesh"
It was irony... but also it goes to the public being informed which many of my comments are about; the numbers brandied for the F-35 by the Government have been 14 billion, 17 Billion then lately (since 2014) 24 Billion. A steadly rising number that may be justified by reasonable causes and analysis breakdowns as you suggest but its still a poor way to communicate the program to the public and in my opinion ultimately works against the F-35 Program by making it an easy target.
If Australian Media have the number wrong at 24 Billion over the life of the program, I appologise it was widely reported as I quoted it.
But your point is moot becasue I think If I asked your estimate it would be higher than 24 Billion ? for the life of the program ?
The major selling point of F-35 was Cost. Remember 3 planes sharing parts etc etc. its all in the original program outline I can paste it here but why bother you know that.
In terms of my criminal conduct statments I stand by them, but you mix them up.
The False reporting in my opinion is a criminal matter, DOT&E report found them out.
You actually agree the F-35 will never meet its original price, performance and capabilities, its in your quoted numbers, but you just let it roll.
I dont, I expect better from companies who contractually agreed to those figures, and make a profit by gaining the contract. Gaining a Government contract by false means is also a criminal matter.. but hey.
I get hammered if I dont deliver in the real world and so should they.
1. As asked by t68, have you actually seen the contracts and therefore do you know the full breakdown of costs and where that money is actually going?
I would suggest not, so why would you get so upset? You have been shown to be misrepresenting what others HAVE said on the topic based on nothing more than poorly remember variations of 'who said what' when the 'who' was the media and not the people / organisation you said it was.
So before you get too carried away with the whole 'criminality' of those involved, perhaps like any forensically minded investigator would, you might actually not form such an opinion until the REAL state of things are known to you, rather than simply relying on hearsay to inform you.
2. There is no platform in the ADF that doesn't have support costs. Are you honestly going to argue that Lockheed Martin should include in its stated cost for the aircraft, what we expect it will cost the RAAF to operate them??? How on Earth can L-M be expected to include such costs? Does fuel cost the same in Australia as it does in Turkey? Do RAAF pilots get paid more or less than their Danish counterparts? Will Australia operate their F-35's at the same flying rate as Japan or will they fly them the same way? Will Japan fly mostly relatively benign anti-shipping or attack profiles which don't stress the airframes so much, while the RAAF does a lot of hard air combat maneuvering style flying which will require far more extensive servicing to keep the airframes operational?
Do you know the answers to all these questions? One assumes you must, given you can so easily pick fault in the official statements about how much it will 'cost' to support them.
Does the fact that we are paying a premium to ensure we can support them locally matter at all? We gain strategic security in return for this premium and the possibility of generating income and job growth with regional F-35 servicing and engine repair capability being located in Australia. Sure we could save some money on this, but defence isn't all about saving money, its about providing for the security of this country first and foremost, whilst of course ensuring our financial resources are used appropriately.
To answer your question, no. I do not think AUD $24B will adequately cover the acquisition, upgrade and operation of a 72 strong F-35A fleet across its life of type. I suspect if that figure was ever used by anyone in a position of authority and not just an 'unnamed source' it was used in the context of it will cost X much to fly N amount of JSF's at G flying hours per year for F many years. Once again, a formula loaded with assumptions which may or may not prove to be accurate, as time goes by. Such assumptionas are predicated upon EXPECTED things such as flying rates, but these can and do change for a variety of reasons.
When you consider the Air Combat Group is funded to fly our Hornets to 13,000 hours per year, I forsee the JSF's flying at a similar rate. Even at the higher rate some media outlets have quoted of around $20k per flight hour, you are talking around $260m per year just to fly the aircraft and that doesn't include support costs for infrastructure, weapons, aircrew, increased flying rates on operations and so on.
The Hornets will have a 35 - 40 year lifespan across the fleet when they exit service and I fully expect the JSF's will too. Using the upper figures there, you get to $10.3b just to fly the aircraft throughout its service at peace time flying rates, without considering upgrades and the support costs of enabling assets. So will $12b adequately cover ALL the cost of supporting this fleet of aircraft, keeping them operationally relevant and funding all the enablers (and assuming the extra 28 aren't taken up)? No, I don't think it does.
However this point is a non-sequitor. Such costs are present no matter which aircraft you fly. The RAAF Super Hornets are funded to fly 7000 hours across a fleet of 24 aircraft this year. A far higher flying rate per aircraft than the Hornets fly and probably higher than JSF will fly, which means the cost is likely far higher. Does that bother you? Its the cost of acquiring the operational outcomes expected of the capability. You can pay less and the outcome you are able to generate will be correspondingly less, too.
. 
