Forum: Program and politics

F-35 program total now at $276.5 billion



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
Viperalltheway
PostPosted: Apr 13, 2006 - 09:55 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM
Posts: 800

Quote:
F-35 program total now at $276.5 billion

By BOB COX - STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER


The Pentagon reported Friday that the total estimated cost of Lockheed Martin's F-35 joint strike fighter program has risen by $20 billion, a 7.7 percent increase in the last year.

In a quarterly "selected acquisition report," Pentagon analysts now estimate that it will cost $276.5 billion to develop three versions of the F-35 and build about 2,400 of the planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

That's up from the $256 billion figure last given for the program. The total cost figures are for the lifetime of the program, which could exceed 20 years. It is the largest U.S. weapons program ever.

The Pentagon said cost increases are largely because of higher materials costs and a change in inflation expectations.

Earlier Friday, the Pentagon said that its top weapons buyer had signed off on a plan to allow Lockheed and other contractors to begin spending money for early-stage work on the first five F-35 production models.

Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, approved the plan Thursday. Krieg and other senior civilian and military officials reviewed the program's progress and plans last week.

Congress included $120 million in the fiscal 2006 budget that was approved in December for F-35 contractors to buy "long lead items," such as manufacturing equipment, materials and some initial parts and assemblies.

"It's a down payment on the first five airplanes," said Kathy Crawford, spokeswoman for the F-35's program manager, Rear Adm. Steven Enewold.

The Pentagon has requested more money to build the first "low rate initial production" planes, all conventional-takeoff-and-landing versions for the U.S. Air Force, in the fiscal 2007 budget that President Bush submitted to Congress.

Enewold and other program managers had briefed Krieg on program progress. Crawford said that a critical design review team, which in February examined the work done by Lockheed and other contractors, gave the design for the Air Force version a green light.

Crawford confirmed that the first test flight of the prototype F-35, which had been expected to take place in August, is now likely to slip to early fall.

Ground testing of the F-35 prototype "is right on schedule," Lockheed spokesman John Kent said.

The first production versions of the aircraft won't be completed until 2009, by which time much flight testing using test aircraft is scheduled to have been completed.

Source: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/14296748.htm


What do you think of that elp?? Laughing
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: May 23, 2013 - 4:11 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Apr 14, 2006 - 03:51 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147

Yeah well.... truth be told it pains me to be trashing this program the way I do. ( many good and serious pros are working hard on this thing ).... but by god.. take a piece of paper and write down all the stuff we could fund easy with this money.... including simple things like more flying hours. Geez. Embarassed For USAF, I see more value in an F-15E than I do this thing. Once large SAMs and aircraft are managed, F-15Es can go to town. What is it now..? 12 GBU-38s just on the CFTs ? ( recent K test ) Laughing

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Viperalltheway
PostPosted: Apr 14, 2006 - 07:53 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM
Posts: 800

Yes Very Happy , and like you say, the number of kills per sortie has to be taken into account. It's one thing to be able to put 8 SDBs inside a JSF, but if you can put like 20 on 1 F-15E (probably feasable), what do you prefer for an initial strike?

For an initial strike you need a MASSIVE firepower. You want to reduce your losses for sure, but even more important you want to beat the hell out of your enemy as quickly as possible before he strikes back.

If you send 1 F-15E with 20 SDBs instead of an F-35 with 8, you can kill 2.5 times as many targets. Your losses may not even be higher because first you risk 2.5 fewer aircraft, and second you aquire air dominance faster. It's pretty much what happened during the gulf war when the tornadoes were used to hit iraqi airfield. It was f****** dangerous but very effective! Several tornadoes were lost but air dominance was gained quickly!

This stands also for the JSF. As soon as a sufficient level of air domination has been achieved, it would be armed with external weapons simply because that would TRIPLE its payload.

And btw, a block 60 could carry up to 16 SDBs or 8 PGMs ( 4 BRU-55 racks ), and still have a good range ( it carries CFTs, and since it carries its jammers internally, the centerline station is freed for another tank ). The AF is even working on a "smart" TER for 500lbs JDAMs. That's up to 12 JDAMs per F-16!!

Another thing is that new F-15s or F-16s could be armed with a ramjet missile. With such a missile and an AESA radar they would be on par with anything else. What is the AF waiting for to develop a ramjet missile, I have no idea.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: May 10, 2006 - 02:22 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147

More tea leafs on what the second engine issue will or will not cost on vs. paying for it with airframe numbers... or not.....

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsA ... nN09343925

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
RonO
PostPosted: May 10, 2006 - 09:15 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 10, 2006 - 12:59 AM
Posts: 128

Status: Offline
The proposal to buy more F-15E's doesn't do anything for the Marines or the Navy and doesn't provide an aircraft that can survive sophisticated defense systems for the next 40 or 50 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think too many F-15's were over Bagdad in the first few days. If they were a poor risk then, what makes them better in the future? Do we really want to send our boys & girls into hot targets riding a design that's older than most posters in this forum?

Not clear either that buying F-15E's to replace F-16's is cheaper than buying JSF. Current projected fly away for an F-35A is significantly lower than the F-15K's being purchased by Korea & Singapore. Of course that estimate will go up but doubtful if it will ever exceed the older aircraft and servicing the old girl will always cost 2 or 3 times as much.

It's funny looking back but there was a very vocal set that criticised the F-15 in the beginning. Who needs a warmed over Phantom that can't go any faster, can't carry more weapons and doesn't have a 2nd pair of eyes? What we need is a Mach 3 superjet that can operate in near space.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: May 13, 2006 - 12:57 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147

What makes any legacy fighter better is better, cheap, long range PGMs which we are seeing work, NCW, and if someone was smart for the whole team concept, J-UCAS. I don't think you will see the long range-high alt SAM thrive in an environ that has to deal with 24/7 J-UCAS overwatch. Add to that, I don't see them thriving too much in a F-22-SDB I and later II world.

F-22 with 8 SDBs will also be a SEAD/DEAD helper.

As for the Navy. Well, not my problem. However it seems we are just starting to see how powerful AESA with the F-18E/F working with other team players will be.

And again once large SAMs are down and enemy airpower is down, legacy jets can plink away from up high and beat down what is left. Problem solved. Justifying JSF in these budget times as some kind of solution is lunacy.

Quote:
F-35A is significantly lower than the F-15K's being purchased by Korea & Singapore


Not at the rate the JSF program is going over budget. Add to that, We aren't Korea or Singapore and already have an F-15 SPO and other things in place.

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
RonO
PostPosted: May 13, 2006 - 01:50 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 10, 2006 - 12:59 AM
Posts: 128

Status: Offline
So you are suggesting replacing the USAF F-117/F-16 fleet with a mixture of:

a) F-22's developed with a ground attack capability (e.g. F-22E's) which are not in anyone's budget

b) J-UCAS which has just been cancelled by the air force leaving it a navy only program

c) New generation F-15's with a flyaway higher than F-35 and 2 or 3 times running costs

And you think this all will be cheaper than the USAF share of the JSF program? and will work fine because no significant air defenses will exist after the first couple of days of a conflict?

If I understand you correctly (and I may very well not). I don't think either conclusion is very realistic.

Money is one thing and affordability is always in the eye of the beholder. We can debate that ad infinitum. I am more concerned with the assumption that future conflicts will follow the pattern of GW II with allied control of the air being imposed so early and so completely. I doubt very much whether that kind of success could be repeated in different geographies with smarter opponents. Especially if we look 30 to 40 years from now. I think it much more likely that air defenses will be still be partially effective and that tacair will be under significant threat for the duration. I fear there won't be room to "carry" an obsolete type no matter how smart it's bombs might be.

cheers
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic