Forum: General F-35 Forum

popcorn wrote:

Wheeler and his smirking USAF source really have no factual basis for their O&S projections. His numbers aren't credible.

From the 2010 SAR:

RDT&E: $54.3967B (TY$) 14 SDD jets

"Compared to the Current Acquisition Program Baseline, the Current Estimate of 14 flight test aircraft quantity reflects the net decrease of 2 jets in accordance with the Fall 2007 Mid-Course Risk Reduction plan approved by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, and increase of 1 jet in accordance with the February 2010 program restructure."

Procurement: $324.44449B (TY$) 2,443 production jets

"F-35 procurement cost reflects DoD cost only [for 1,763 Air Force CTOL, 680 Department of Navy CV & STOVL variants], but assumes the quantity benefits of 730 International Partner aircraft in accordance with the signed Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Procurement cost excludes Partner non-recurring cost shares required under the PSFD MOU."

MILCON: $551.2M (TY$)

"Since the Services have not yet fully established F-35 basing plans, the Milestone (MS) B and approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Military Construction (MILCON) estimates reflect a top-level parametric estimate, not discrete estimates for specific sites. The Current Estimate (CE) reflects specific MILCON requirements identified in the Fiscal Year 2012 President's Budget Future Years Defense Program. The MILCON CE will continue to be updated as the Services identify additional specific MILCON requirements in the MS B APB."

O&S: $1.005342T (TY$)

"Total O&S Cost reflects total O&S costs for all three U.S. variants based on an estimated 8,000 hour service life and predicted attrition and usage rates..."

Total: $1.3847343T (TY$) (rounds to $1.4T)

His numbers are correct as reported in the 2010 SAR. His source speculates that the costs will increase and will be reflected in the 2011 SAR.

F-16.net Sponsor

No need hopefully to revisit that $1T figure based on so many variables projected over a 50-year timeframe that they are questionable to say the least. A figure that does not consider any real-world, empirical F-35 O&S costs as they are still unavailable and use assumptions from legacy platforms. So if that is the basis for the $1.4T guess, then it's equally flawed.

popcorn wrote:

No need hopefully to revisit that $1T figure based on so many variables projected over a 50-year timeframe that they are questionable to say the least. A figure that does not consider any real-world, empirical F-35 O&S costs as they are still unavailable and use assumptions from legacy platforms. So if that is the basis for the $1.4T guess, then it's equally flawed.

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the methods used by the DoD to project future costs associated with the F-35, Wheeler used an official, bona fide source for his $1.4T number. It is a estimate produced by the DoD, and required by law, that is generally accepted by officialdom - regardless of the complaints of contractors and other disappointed parties.

From the 2010 SAR:

"The F-35 O&S estimate is based on F-18C, F-16C, and AV-8B history, when F-35 specific data is not available. F-35 O&S costs shown in comparison with the antecedent system reflect cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35 Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant only. The CTOL variant will make up the majority of the F-35 aircraft DoD buy, 1,763 of the 2,443 total. The O&S differences between F-35 CTOL and F-16 are representative of the comparisons across legacy fleets."

The O&S estimate is only that: an estimate. It could be either lower, or higher than expected. More F-35 data wil certainly help to refine the estimate.

maus92 wrote:

The O&S estimate is only that: an estimate. It could be either lower, or higher than expected. More F-35 data wil certainly help to refine the estimate.

Yes, but estimates for the F-35 were once VASTLY lower than they are today. Given its history so far, there's no reason to believe future cost estimates on the F-35 should be lower than they currently predict.

Yes, it's possible that the actual cost of operating and procuring the fighter may end up being lower than current estimates... but what if they end up being much higher? I can't imagine a fighter which is already nearly double what it was supposed to be having much room for added expenses and further delays.

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

No need hopefully to revisit that $1T figure based on so many variables projected over a 50-year timeframe that they are questionable to say the least. A figure that does not consider any real-world, empirical F-35 O&S costs as they are still unavailable and use assumptions from legacy platforms. So if that is the basis for the $1.4T guess, then it's equally flawed.

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the methods used by the DoD to project future costs associated with the F-35, Wheeler used an official, bona fide source for his $1.4T number. It is a estimate produced by the DoD, and required by law, that is generally accepted by officialdom - regardless of the complaints of contractors and other disappointed parties.

From the 2010 SAR:

"The F-35 O&S estimate is based on F-18C, F-16C, and AV-8B history, when F-35 specific data is not available. F-35 O&S costs shown in comparison with the antecedent system reflect cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35 Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant only. The CTOL variant will make up the majority of the F-35 aircraft DoD buy, 1,763 of the 2,443 total. The O&S differences between F-35 CTOL and F-16 are representative of the comparisons across legacy fleets."

The O&S estimate is only that: an estimate. It could be either lower, or higher than expected. More F-35 data wil certainly help to refine the estimate.

And so why is this news? Because Wheeler (who has criticized the program for the past six years) did the really difficult arithmetic of adding the operational cost estimates publically available for four months with the procurement data for available for three month?

This reinforces my criticism of the current state of journalism surrounding the F-35. Take old information, change it a bit and call it new showing just how bad the program is. You're guilty of this. You were the one who originally posted about the 1 trillion number from the Reuters report

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... p;p=218467

I'm guessing now its really important for the debate that we hear a rehash of information to show just how bad this program is.

"refinine the estimate" implies the underlying cost is more or less acurate and it's simply a matter of a nip here, a tuck there to arrive at an accurate figure. That' s fine if you're dealing with a legacy platform for whose maintenance and support considerations are well understood and for which historical data is available. But its wrong to apply that model to the F-35.In the absence of F-35 data, the analysts who came up with the $1T figure had no choice but to resort to what they knew which was legacy platforms. Unfortunate.

The F-35 is a transformational product, a fancy term that means it's not bound by the old rules. That's what many critics of the jet can't seem to grasp or accept and so they continue to judge it based on the old paradigm of legacy jets. The same applies to it's O&S model which stesses ease of supportablity and commonality backed up by a new logistics model. So it's intended to provide more than just incremental savings vs. what came before. Only when there are enough airframes in the hands of the Mx folk under operational conditions will empirical data become available to form an informed judgment.

Throwing out sensational figures in the public spotlight and inflating them even further, specially when not putting them in the proper context, smacks of tabloid journalism in my book.If Wheeler really wanted to do the American taxpayer a service, he should do a comparative 50-year analysis for a greatly expanded legacy jet fleet that would be the only alternative to the F-35. If he did it in a fair manner, I doubt he would like the results he gets.

You're still throwing out the line that the F-35 is a transformative program?

What about that old canard: "testing is validation." Or, Lockheed's (and many people here, by the appearance of it) unbridled faith in computer aided design? It all died in last fall's report about the several, some serious, challenges facing the JSF.

Given the track record of the JSF, it is just as likely that the logistics model developed by Lockheed won't work as intended. And, because the fighter is more complex than the aircraft it is replacing, it is understandable if one's skeptical of Lockheed's claims.

The fact of the matter is the JSF should be viewed just like any other fighter program; until facts prove otherwise. And right now, the program's trajectory shows that it has all the hallmarks of recent fighter development.

(note: this doesn't make an argument for or against the JSF. Just an argument against those who still(!) think the program is a something of a pinnacle of achievement, or a pinnacle of development, in the annals of military aviation)

hb_pencil wrote:

And so why is this news? Because Wheeler (who has criticized the program for the past six years) did the really difficult arithmetic of adding the operational cost estimates publically available for four months with the procurement data for available for three month?

This reinforces my criticism of the current state of journalism surrounding the F-35. Take old information, change it a bit and call it new showing just how bad the program is. You're guilty of this. You were the one who originally posted about the 1 trillion number from the Reuters report

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... p;p=218467

I'm guessing now its really important for the debate that we hear a rehash of information to show just how bad this program is.

For the record, Wheeler is not a journalist, he is a policy analyst for CDI.

I'm not sure what I'm guilty of, but here's some related news:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18925.html

Whatever difficulties the JSF has had to face and overcome in it's ongoing development in no way diminishes it's transformational nature as evidenced by the many countries backing the program. Other major defense programs that pushed the edge of the envelope have encountered similar difficulties but with perseverance and hard work have lived up to fulfill their potential. Those who are faint of heart and lack vision should get out of the way of those who are working to get it done

Wheeler is right there with Sprey, Ricionni, and Bill Sweetman when it comes to objectivity. That is to say, he has none.

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Wheeler and his smirking USAF source really have no factual basis for their O&S projections. His numbers aren't credible.

From the 2010 SAR:

RDT&E: $54.3967B (TY$) 14 SDD jets

"Compared to the Current Acquisition Program Baseline, the Current Estimate of 14 flight test aircraft quantity reflects the net decrease of 2 jets in accordance with the Fall 2007 Mid-Course Risk Reduction plan approved by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, and increase of 1 jet in accordance with the February 2010 program restructure."

Procurement: $324.44449B (TY$) 2,443 production jets

"F-35 procurement cost reflects DoD cost only [for 1,763 Air Force CTOL, 680 Department of Navy CV & STOVL variants], but assumes the quantity benefits of 730 International Partner aircraft in accordance with the signed Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Procurement cost excludes Partner non-recurring cost shares required under the PSFD MOU."

MILCON: $551.2M (TY$)

"Since the Services have not yet fully established F-35 basing plans, the Milestone (MS) B and approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Military Construction (MILCON) estimates reflect a top-level parametric estimate, not discrete estimates for specific sites. The Current Estimate (CE) reflects specific MILCON requirements identified in the Fiscal Year 2012 President's Budget Future Years Defense Program. The MILCON CE will continue to be updated as the Services identify additional specific MILCON requirements in the MS B APB."

O&S: $1.005342T (TY$)

"Total O&S Cost reflects total O&S costs for all three U.S. variants based on an estimated 8,000 hour service life and predicted attrition and usage rates..."

Total: $1.3847343T (TY$) (rounds to $1.4T)

His numbers are correct as reported in the 2010 SAR. His source speculates that the costs will increase and will be reflected in the 2011 SAR.

Do you have the equivalent numbers for the F-16, Hornet/Super Hornet, and Harrier all rolled together into one big number and extrapolated out to 50 years?

Mark my words sferrin. Procurements of 2,443 production jets(F-35) are in no way carved in stone.. given the future prospect, it will most likely drop than rise.

Last edited by maus92 on Mar 29, 2012 - 07:55 PM; edited 1 time in total

Edit: moved

haavarla wrote:

Mark my words sferrin. Procurements of 2,443 production jets(F-35) are in no way carved in stone.. given the future prospect, it will most likely drop than rise.

I'd say it depends on several things. First, how well it does in service, second how eager countries are to fund a replacement, and third in what way the threat develops. We could easily see MORE than 2443 built. The F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 all had far more built than initially planned. If Japan, South Korea, and others decide they need to start getting fixed wing at sea the F-35B is going to be the cheapest way to do that.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Wheeler: Not $1T, more like $1.4T or more