Forum: Program and politics

( F - 18 ) -> (F-1 Cool

Me thinks the smilies are a might touchy.

F-16.net Sponsor

@F16Viper:

How would producing a F-22B EVER be cheaper than a F-35? Assuming that it would not emulate the F-35B (STOVL), that still leave a much larger airframe, two engines, navalization, and exportability costs.

@Count to 10:

Thanks for the catch, I fixed it.

The point being only one company is carrying out production of fighters for the USAF including concept design, prototyping, development, production, integration, upgrades etc and that is LM and with great difficulty!.
Going back to the topic, what the procurement officers are proposing is just a ridiculous useless effort that will not address the main issue which is an out of control procurement system. You may save a few dollars here and there but how much the concurrency rectification work is going to cost.
Side question. Does anyone know what the price of an F-15E would be compared to the F-22.

Multiple companies did concept design, two companies did prototyping, and while one company is developing toward full production, a lot of companies are involved in integration, production, and upgrades.

I am still not understanding what your point about the F-35 is an how it relates to competition and manufacturers.

On the F-15E note, my guess is they are about $80-$90 in today's dollars. It's hard to figure because so much has changed on them since the first F-15E including software, radar, ESW, HMD, new cockpits, etc. You cannot even look at announced F-15K/SG sales due to so much being lumped into one price.

SpudmanWP:
There is no alternative or plan B to the F-35 therefore no competition or reason to be cautious with price, whereas with the F-15, the F-16 was the competition at the time or viceversa. LM is fully aware of that and charges premium price for everything. That is the way ANY contractor would operate. It was a big, big mistake (or some would say it was planned that way) to allow only one fighter plane to serve all services and end up in this situation. Sheer lunacy.

Are you guys paying any attention here?? "Pentagon Tests New Way of Estimating Program Costs." In other words, they don't have a clue about the cost of anything, only (as someone above said), what they "want" stuff to cost. Maybe they should try some "actuals" eh?

Would be really nice if someone in the government acquisition clown show had ever worked in a profit and loss entity. Instead we get some new academic monopoly money exercise called "should cost."

ygbsm.

@F16Viper: There was a competition and LM won. What is so hard about that to understand?

As to the F-15/F-16, one their respective competitions were won that was it. There was not further competition to see who builds each fighter from year to year.

Btw, it was Congress (as a cost savings measure) and not the DoD or LM that demanded that JAST be merged with ASTOVL.
http://www.jsf.mil/history/index.htm

As far as Plan B, they could always cancel the F-35, build more F-15/16/18s and start over. People can spout off about "too big to fail" all they want, but that is simply not true.

Yes quicksilver, it is very clear they are both supposed to be pulling from both ends of the rope. there could e a big s%h%i%T fight ahead. In very simplistic terms, you can do that when you have an entity working for the client, the US government, that independently keeps track of all costs, prices, expenditures, positive and negative variations etc. I do not know it that has been happening or not.

maus92 wrote:

Todd Harrison [senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments] says:

"The major cost driver on weapon programs is requirements that are added over time with little regard for costs."

Change orders almost always cost more than they should - it gives license to charge what you want. Pretty standard engineering practice throughout industry.

Standard practice eh? And how much time have you spent 'in the industry?' Got any insight into the actuals vs predicted on F-35 CRs?

F16VIPER wrote:

SpudmanWP:
There is no alternative or plan B to the F-35 therefore no competition or reason to be cautious with price, whereas with the F-15, the F-16 was the competition at the time or viceversa. LM is fully aware of that and charges premium price for everything. That is the way ANY contractor would operate. It was a big, big mistake (or some would say it was planned that way) to allow only one fighter plane to serve all services and end up in this situation. Sheer lunacy.

Very well said Viper. My favorite recent quote out of the Pentagon concerning the F-35 is: "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar of the program."

Side note:

"Continued flaws with a program designed to track the cost of the military’s largest weapon system are eating into Lockheed Martin’s bottom line.

Late last week, Lockheed learned the military is halting an ongoing review of its internal audit program, the earned value management system (EVMS). Along with that decision, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will withhold 5% of the price of the fifth lot of fighter jets — the maximum penalty.

That withholding is an increase from earlier this year. DCMA had withheld just 2% of the contract in late February because Lockheed had submitted a plan to correct shortcomings of its EVMS effort. That amounted to about $600,000 per month, according to DCMA.

EVMS is the monitoring system that allows contractors to make the claim that a program is “on cost and on schedule.” Lockheed’s cost and schedule tracker has been under review since 2010, when the Pentagon opted to decertify Lockheed’s EVMS. At that time, DCMA found fault in 19 out of 32 areas; DCMA is still finding significant issues in 13 areas."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 471021.xml

Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon Tests New Way Of Estimating [F-35] Program Costs