“I Would Want the F-35; There’s No Question

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 05:40

SpudmanWP wrote:A quick check of annual RCPFH numbers (released in the fall of every year) shows that the F-35's RCPFH numbers are:
    Falling at a steady rate while 4th gen costs are relatively steady.
    Already below the F-15E


Here is the history of the F-35A vs peer 4th gen US jets in an apples-2-apples comparison since 2014.

Image



May we have the original source??? (please)
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7752
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 06:21

Corsair1963 wrote:May we have the original source??? (please)

Start here:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Financi ... rates2018/

This is an annual report that gives the RCPFH (Reimbursable CPFH) rates for various DoD aircraft for the fiscal year.

For each year (2018 was the latest one), look for the PDF called "Fixed Wing and Helicopter Reimbursement Rates" or something close to it.

To get an idea of what RCPFH (brown box below) is and how it fits into various "CPFH" calculations within the DoD, this should clear it up :roll:


Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 06:30

THANK YOU! :D
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 08:06

Spud, could you posit thoughts on the bump from 2015 to 2016. Is it a function of IOC demand and scaling-up of other services?

F--22A doing same?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2104
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 11:15

Some years ago, someone in DoD set RAND off on a mission to come up with recommendations for a ‘standard’ CPFH aggregation for DoD-wide use. ‘Not a problem’ said our intrepid analysts over at RAND...

Not so fast. What they ‘discovered’ is that CPFH is a dreadful metric because it is so highly variable, even with a methodology that uses the same cost elements. I think there is a line in the findings section that describes CPFH thusly — ‘behaves counter-intuitively’ (e.g. when there are high fixed costs early in a program due to depot stand-ups for a new TMS).

So, their answer was essentially ‘CPFH is really hard.’

Good job guys.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1178.html
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 13:17

Post engine-fire and core replacement impact maybe.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2104
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 13:51

Engine fire was in 2014. They didn’t have to replace the engine core.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1127
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 16:32

element1loop wrote:Spud, could you posit thoughts on the bump from 2015 to 2016. Is it a function of IOC demand and scaling-up of other services?

F--22A doing same?

If we're positing ... I'll toss a hat ... while most of the cuncurrency expenses should slide out to JPO managed CPFH there may have been some expenses at depot level work for the move to 3I/F, and I'm not sure how they handled similar 2B-3F (corrosive holes etc.)

Like Quick noted in the Rand study ... CPFH is hard! ..

Early program expenses have to be put into some square and it isn't always obvious which one early on ..

MHO,
BP
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7752
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 16:40

element1loop wrote:could you posit thoughts on the bump from 2015 to 2016.

I can only surmise that it's an item that was previously under a broader CPFH basket that was moved into the "R"CPFH one. I do not think it was something "new" as the lifetime CPFH numbers in the SAR did not change. Given that it affected both the F-22 and F-35 equally, I would guess that it is stealth related.

What is encouraging is that post-bump the RCPFH has continued to fall for the F-35 but it's odd that the F-22 stayed at it's new high as the new norm..
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2104
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post08 Aug 2018, 17:43

WRT 2015, my guess would be no better than that of anyone else out here in the public domain. I will say that there are cost elements that can vary greatly in some identically named/labeled comparisons. An example would be the assumed cost/gal of JP8. This shows up in other docs too like a SAR (which does not use rcpfh); last time I looked, SH was using something like 1997 fuel cost at $.77/gal. (That’s not a misprint...77 cents/ gallon). In this case we don’t know where there might be flaws in the comparisons because we don’t see the GR&A.

The other reality is that CPFH over the life of a program will look like the letter ‘U’. Higher on the front end because of investments for fixed costs while the flying inventory is relatively small; relative stability as the program matures, inventory increases and flattens out, and the most FHs are produced; and, rising cost once again as the airframes age, the DLRs get more expensive, and the inventory thins thereby producing fewer flight hours.
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests