Forum: General F-35 Forum

wrightwing wrote:

The touchiness has nothing to do with Aviation Week. It has to do with Bill Sweetman, who has a record of extreme bias against the F-35.

I quite agree with you there. Bill has been a biased (and highly unprofessional) detractor of the program and any minor fault it may have but you can't argue with the facts in this case when the F-35 is hit by yet more delays. It's simply appalling.

F-16.net Sponsor

Thank you for the honest answers. I'm getting it.

This is my concern however: To a lot of people (I'm being honest here) to a lot of people, the F-35 program looks like a world-class cluster f-ck--and now is a very bad fiscal / financial time for a program to look that way.

We have to find a way to bring projects in on time and on budget, because every big defense contract out there looks like the F-35 and that's not a good thing for our country.

Al

I have a thought.

In early 2011 VAdm Venlet did a lot of restructuring and reorganizing that has set the program as a whole on solid ground that it is making progress on and ticking off check point after check point. The budget situation has also required 179 aircraft that would have been delivered between now and 2019 to be pushed out, which likely delayed IOE&T getting all their planes.

Could it be that the SAR is catching up to what Venlet did last year and the delayed purchases rather than an additional slip?

Additionally, I still hold by my predicition that IOE&T will likely finish ahead of 2019 as predicted in the 2011 SAR.

Sufa Viper

avxva wrote:

This is my concern however: To a lot of people (I'm being honest here) to a lot of people, the F-35 program looks like a world-class cluster f-ck--and now is a very bad fiscal / financial time for a program to look that way.

Well just because it's not uncommon for programs to go over budget and have delays, the F-35 program was intended to avoid these problems from the start. That's the whole point of designing one fighter with three variants... to save costs on development.

As a result of having to meet EVERY demand from all the services, this ONE program is now costing somewhere along the lines of what three separate programs would have cost... and the development delays are equally appalling.

In terms of its capabilities... the F-35 does fairly well in this regard. In terms of its original goal as an affordable fighter... it's failed quite miserably. Every service is depending on this fighter... meaning that they'll suffer every budget overrun and every delay as well.

fat_cat wrote:

river_otter wrote:

I agree. Every single member of Congress should be ashamed they didn't stay out of LM's hair and just authorize whatever extra funding it would've taken to get it done in 15 years.

Smile

You make it out as if LM is blameless for so many technical cock-ups when the fact is they are to blame. Some serious blunders and some not so serious but make no mistake they are to blame.

And sure Congress may be partly to blame but that just goes to show what a clusterf**k of a system the US has for defense procurement. The whole thing has been a serious embarrassment on a scale never seen before for the US.

If it keeps up the Chinese will most certainly have eaten you guys alive by 2030.
I wonder what the next line of excuses trotted out for this clusterf**k will be...

Do you know of a better, cheaper, alternative that meets the same set of requirements? Didn't think so. How 'bout you go pop a few ritalin (that you've clearly forgotten to take).

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Lockheed Martin's product is now almost twice as much as they had promised

How do you figure? Are you looking at LRIP pricing vs projected average cost?

SpudmanWP wrote:

How do you figure? Are you looking at LRIP pricing vs projected average cost?

I'm looking at what they had projected at the start of the program, adjust for inflation and then compare them to what they're projecting today under a best-case scenario.

Do you remember a time when the F-35 was only supposed to be $28 million a piece? Remember when the entire procurement program was only supposed to be $200 million?

Yeah taking inflation into account, these figures would be higher in today's dollars. Even then the total program's budget has been bloated to over $400 billion while estimated unit procurement has been reduced. It's fairly safe to say that the F-35 is going to be twice what they expected... unless some magical fairy comes down and magically changes this program for the better.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Well just because it's not uncommon for programs to go over budget and have delays, the F-35 program was intended to avoid these problems from the start.

Not avoid, but reduce/minimize... which it has. Other programs in recent memory have been worse.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

That's the whole point of designing one fighter with three variants... to save costs on development.

And it worked. We now have one program whose overruns are not really spectacular for a single program, getting the job of three programs done. Otherwise, we'd have two or three, and each one of them would also be suffering from the same old issues that all other recent military development programs and all other recent civilian major aircraft programs have had.

delvo wrote:

Not avoid, but reduce/minimize... which it has. Other programs in recent memory have been worse.

It has... in what ways?

Has is NOT gone significantly over budget? No.

Has it NOT actually met its deadlines, resulting in having to extend to lives of legacy fighters even longer? No.

If you call this a success, then how would you define failure?

battleshipagincourt wrote:

I'm looking at what they had projected at the start of the program, adjust for inflation and then compare them to what they're projecting today under a best-case scenario.

Do you remember a time when the F-35 was only supposed to be $28 million a piece?

According to the 2012 SAR (page 62) the original SAR APUC estimate was $60 mil in BY2012. Inflation adjusted to 2001 (the year the contract was signed) it is $46 mil. Where did you get $28?

Did you also notice that last year they thought it would be $110 and this year it's $92? Seems to be dropping as they get a better handle on the manufacturing process (or the 2010 SAR was FOC) Wink

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Yeah taking inflation into account, these figures would be higher in today's dollars. Even then the total program's budget has been bloated to over $400 billion

Again, according to the 2012 SAR (page 20) the "Then Year" cost is estimated to be $395 billion (not "over $400 billion) with a baseline of $233 billion. It's a long way from doubling.

avxva wrote:

Thank you for the honest answers. I'm getting it.

This is my concern however: To a lot of people (I'm being honest here) to a lot of people, the F-35 program looks like a world-class cluster f-ck--and now is a very bad fiscal / financial time for a program to look that way.

It looks that way to people unfamiliar with other weapons programs, and the issues that they've also had. The Typhoon and Rafale both took longer, and they were less ambitious, and cost more per aircraft.

The funny thing about facts and figures are that anyone can take them and make them what they want. This program is the perfect example. Everyone talks about how over budget it is. Fine, how much over budget is it when you consider a few things.

First, the budget (estimate) was originally for one set of specs that have changed... I do not even know the number of changes to the plane that the Congress and DOD have introduced....

Two, this budget is over a very large number of years; 55 years at current count. Would you expect a budget for the government made back in 1960 to be accurate at all for 2013?

Three, the budget keeps changing what it actually measures. One year it measures this, then the next year it adds in this cost.... and the next year another cost.

Four, this is a budget for the WHOLE PROGRAM. That means everything that the military plans to ever spend on the jet or related operations. The costs to set up the bases, the costs to operate, and on and on.

I can continue but hopefully you get the point. This budget that keeps getting talked about is mostly worthless. No one has any idea what the real cost will be for this program in 55 years. To even attempt to guess at it is almost pointless. Yet people are still harping over a 55 year budget.....

Just an example, the B52 is seen as a very cheap aircraft to operate. Yet if you seen it's 55 year program cost in the 1960s you would have had a heart attack. Remember we are talking about every cost that the plane caused the military from setting up base facilities for the jet to anticipated upgrades that were not even imagined in the 1950s-60s.

sufaviper wrote:

I have a thought.

In early 2011 VAdm Venlet did a lot of restructuring and reorganizing that has set the program as a whole on solid ground that it is making progress on and ticking off check point after check point. The budget situation has also required 179 aircraft that would have been delivered between now and 2019 to be pushed out, which likely delayed IOE&T getting all their planes.

Could it be that the SAR is catching up to what Venlet did last year and the delayed purchases rather than an additional slip?

Additionally, I still hold by my predicition that IOE&T will likely finish ahead of 2019 as predicted in the 2011 SAR.

Sufa Viper

That is possible.
Whenever a new officer is taking over something, the single right thing for him to do is, putting all the blames to his predecessor, emphasizing every tiny bit of cracks of that thing, setting everyone's expectation to the lowest, and that can show how well he will be doing next.

But still, a well managed program should arrive on time, not late, not early either. Early also means your estimation was not accurate.

sferrin wrote:

Do you know of a better, cheaper, alternative that meets the same set of requirements? Didn't think so. How 'bout you go pop a few ritalin (that you've clearly forgotten to take).

I hate to break it to you but this program isn't delivering anything so far apart from massive headaches and extra expense for the USAF, the USN, the USMC, the RAF, the FAA, the Australian Air Force, the Israeli Air Force, the Canadian Air Force and every single other program member. Going well isn't it Laughing

fat_cat wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Do you know of a better, cheaper, alternative that meets the same set of requirements? Didn't think so. How 'bout you go pop a few ritalin (that you've clearly forgotten to take).

I hate to break it to you but this program isn't delivering anything so far apart from massive headaches and extra expense for the USAF, the USN, the USMC, the RAF, the FAA, the Australian Air Force, the Israeli Air Force, the Canadian Air Force and every single other program member. Going well isn't it Laughing

Actually it is, when you compare it to other fighters in the international market. The F/A-18 has only won one competition (as a stop gap) and lost two. The Rafale has lost several contracts after it had ostensibly won. The Gripen had several orders cancelled. The Eurofighter is being retired early because of high costs.

Compared to its competitors, the F-35 is actually doing fairly well. It hasn't lost a competition, and only seen modest reductions among states who were implementing harsh austerity measures.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip