Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Forum's nemesis Bill Sweetman has a blog post analyzing the buy rate discrepancies between the F-35 SAR and an USAF planning document. "Bottom line: including F-22s, the USAF plans to keep around 1,200 of its current inventory fighters in service until 2030, implying that it will have some 700 F-35s. But the SAR shows the USAF buying 1,050 JSFs through 2028, the 2030 delivery year. "

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... f315c5a9db

F-16.net Sponsor

Like so many times before, Sweetman claims that the sky is falling. I'll wait for LM's reply, if they bother. Eric Palmer was first poster to reply as usual Laughing

More specious stuff from Bill. He takes a nearly six month old document and compares it to four-year old testimony and then uses a very nuanced term (primary mission aircraft) that 99.9 percent of the readership does not fully appreciate (relative to a how procurement objectives are calculated) to make yet another insinuation "that something must be wrong." Remarkable timing too given AFA and the most recent series of Boeing press releases.

Confused

As someone who hasn't followed the procurement rate story from the very beginning....
What exactly is wrong with infamous Bill's question about the stated total procurement number and annual build rate discrepancy?

'maus92' claims: "F-35 Forum's nemesis Bill Sweetman..." I would suggest that BS is the nemesis of no one and no thing. NEMESIS 'the inescapable or implacable agent of someone's or something's downfall."

spazsinbad wrote:

'maus92' claims: "F-35 Forum's nemesis Bill Sweetman..." I would suggest that BS is the nemesis of no one and no thing. NEMESIS 'the inescapable or implacable agent of someone's or something's downfall."

I like this better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRuoSHI ... re=related Smile

I have to admit that I didn't follow what the argument in that article was.

Mr. Sweetman take another shot F-22 .

spazsinbad wrote:

'maus92' claims: "F-35 Forum's nemesis Bill Sweetman..." I would suggest that BS is the nemesis of no one and no thing. NEMESIS 'the inescapable or implacable agent of someone's or something's downfall."

Some alternate defs:

1. A source of harm or ruin
3. An opponent that cannot be beaten or overcome.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nemesis

So how does BS fit those new definitions?

count_to_10 wrote:

I have to admit that I didn't follow what the argument in that article was.

I believe that the article was claiming that the stated annual build rate plans don't match the projected total aircraft purchase quantity by the projected end year.
Therefor the conclusion in the piece is that you won't end up with the currently claimed production count by the end year.
Therefor the total unit cost will end up being much higher than current claims because you never will get to the money saving volume production levels needed to lower costs.

I'm not saying that I agree, I would just like some folks who are in a position to disagree with facts to take this argument apart. I believe that I saw a table presented on a previous thread that may be the key to answering this.

So far all I've seen is personal jabs at the author based on a previous record of yellow tinted journalism. I haven't seen the content of the article directly addressed.

Where are the personal jabs?

Bill found an inconsistency between the F-35 SAR, the overall number of fighters the USAF says it needs, and a variety of other statements the USAF has made about how many of several different types of aircraft it expects to have in the 2025+ time frame. Bottom line, the numbers add up to more than the total number of aircraft the AF says it needs.

Bill, in his typically alarmist fashion, concludes that the USAF won't reach the F-35 buy rates described in the SAR.

The USAF has been open in stating that they will buy to their budget where the F-35 is concerned. We are talking about purchases a decade+ out from today that will take place under an unknown administration and in an unknown security climate. How long the legacy aircraft remain in service and in what capacity remains to be seen. Bottom line, the USAF is going to buy a lot of F-35s. The question is exactly how many and in what years.

This is a non-story.

hobo wrote:

Bill found an inconsistency between the F-35 SAR, the overall number of fighters the USAF says it needs, and a variety of other statements the USAF has made about how many of several different types of aircraft it expects to have in the 2025+ time frame. Bottom line, the numbers add up to more than the total number of aircraft the AF says it needs.

No, its not even a variety of statements... its just one statement from two air force planners in April to the House Armed Services Committee. The problem is that he's basically taken one or two lines and completely based his views on them and not anything else. Lets read a little further into that same paragraph:

We aggressively pursued mitigating efforts to meet force structure requirements. The most significant efforts involved closely monitoring F-35 production and increasing production as capability matures, and 4th generation sustainment and modernization. The F-35 program status remains the key variable in the fighter force structure as the Air Force transitions to a fifth generation fighter force. Current Air Force mitigation options preserve decision space as we carefully monitor program status and impending decision points.

So, basically the document says that all of the other programs are contingent on the level of success following from the F-35. It goes further than that. The document suggests the F-16s will be drawn down after 2025 and there is a lot of squishiness in the F-15 data.

The March 2012 Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding Plan: Fiscal Years (FY) 2013-2042 suggests a different view as well:

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace ... 3-2042.pdf

The Air Force will defer 98 F-35A aircraft and procure 506 JSF from FY 2013 to FY
2022. In the meantime, the Air Force will invest in a “capability bridge” between legacy fighter platforms and the F-35 to mitigate program delays by investing in legacy fighter modernization and preferred munitions

So basically according to one line he's claiming that its going to cut when all the other statements suggest they will buy according to the same schedule.

Maybe he knows something that we don't, which is entirely possible... however I kinda doubt it.

The actual effects of a rate change would be a major blow for some of the partner nations like Canada which will probably leave the program because they would face much higher per unit costs in their desired delivery dates.

Sweetman & Palmer . . . Tweedle De and Tweedle Dumb of F-35 hysterical fear mongering.

See what happens when big pieces of falling sky hits someone on the head? No doubt they also see invisible wolves behind every tree.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 production rate analyzed