F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Aug 2013, 04:34

'quicksilver' thanks. I did not know that (about CLing an AV-8B). Sounds fraught.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 28 Aug 2013, 05:41

Just a guess here, but I suspect the Harrier is a little touchy during braking, since the only brake is forward of the CG, leading to a ground loop tendency.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Aug 2013, 14:09

See two F-35Bs land and take off conventionally at MCAS Miramar and inbetween be hot refuelled:

F-35B Hot Refuel at MCAS Miramar 07 Aug 2013

"08/26/2013: Two U.S. Marine F-35B Lightning II jets with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, Marine Air Group 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), conduct a training flight from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Ariz. to MCAS Miramar, San Diego, Calif., Aug. 7, 2013 for a hot pit refuel. This evolution marked the first time a F-35B Lightning II executed a hot pit refuel at MCAS Miramar.
Credit:3D Marine Aircraft Wing Combat Camera:8/7/13"

https://vimeo.com/73152376

cantaz · by **cantaz** » 28 Aug 2013, 20:06

Hm, why not use tool-free access panel for the fuel panel?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Aug 2013, 20:41

Combined screenshot from video.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 29 Aug 2013, 02:54

johnwill wrote:Just a guess here, but I suspect the Harrier is a little touchy during braking, since the only brake is forward of the CG, leading to a ground loop tendency.

Actually, only brake is aft of the CG. Problem is, unlike more typical gear arrangements where ~80% of the weight of the jet is on the main mounts, only 50ish percent is on the main gear (where the brakes are). And then, as one gobbles up runway at the speed of heat, the lift still being generated by the wing further reduces the inertia subject to the effect of the brakes (two wheels). Neither the nose gear (single wheel) nor the outriggers (also single wheel) have brakes.

Brakes not too touchy until one gets below ~15kts GS (iirc) when the anti-skid fades out.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 29 Aug 2013, 06:09

Of course, you're right. I was thinking the main gear was the forward gear and did not take the time to check it out.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 29 Aug 2013, 06:16

Of course, you're right. I was thinking the main gear was the forward gear and did not take the time to check it out.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 30 Aug 2013, 02:05

No spoilers on the wings?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 30 Aug 2013, 22:33

count_to_10 wrote:No spoilers on the wings?

Add weight and complexity, and reduce fuel volume (range/TOS) on a STOVL jet just for a rarely used emergency procedure?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 05 Sep 2013, 02:04

Kendall: F-35 Sustainment Costs Likely to Drop 04 Sep 2013 AARON MEHTA & MARCUS WEISGERBER

"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s top acquisition official expects the lifetime operations and sustainment (O&S) costs for the F-35 joint strike fighter to drop following a report this fall.

Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, made his comments Wednesday after speaking at the ComDef conference in Washington, sponsored by IDEEA.

“We’re … looking at that number,” Kendall said. “The official number is still the one we put up in the SAR [selected acquisition report]. We’re going to do a review of F-35 this fall. We’ll get another estimate out of CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] for that and we’ll probably make some adjustments.”...

...“I do expect it to come down. I don’t know if it will come down as much as [Bogdan’s] number, but we’ll take a look at it,” Kendall said. “He has a basis for it. The problem with that number is there are so many different assumptions you can make and too many different ways to calculate it. I don’t want to be overly optimistic and I don’t want to be overly conservative.”

“So, we’ll take a look at the assumptions he made and we’ll look at what CAPE comes up with and see what we want to use as an official estimate.”..."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... /309040014

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 19 Sep 2013, 23:27

The Sheriff is a straight-shooter, mess with him at your own risk.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -Real.aspx

Twenty-Two Percent is Real

Press reports about F-35 lifecycle costs—indicating that the new estimate is $857 billion versus the previous estimate of $1.1 trillion, or 22 percent less—were accurate, said F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. "We're working well" with the Pentagon's independent cost-assessment shop to get to figures both teams can agree on, he said during a Sept. 17 interview. One difference of opinion: the cost-assessment office's estimates assume seasoned maintainers will be doing the repair work, since senior people have been tapped for the program so far. But eventually those jobs will be done by two-stripers, said Bogdan. Such assumptions make a "huge difference" in cost over the 53 years for which the cost estimators are required to forecast. Bogdan asserted that opponents of the F-35 have "too many opinions, not enough facts." He considers himself an honest broker and is not afraid to tell bad news about the F-35, or in this case, good news.

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 20 Sep 2013, 02:43

popcorn wrote:The Sheriff is a straight-shooter, mess with him at your own risk.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -Real.aspx

Twenty-Two Percent is Real

Press reports about F-35 lifecycle costs—indicating that the new estimate is $857 billion versus the previous estimate of $1.1 trillion, or 22 percent less—were accurate, said F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. "We're working well" with the Pentagon's independent cost-assessment shop to get to figures both teams can agree on, he said during a Sept. 17 interview. One difference of opinion: the cost-assessment office's estimates assume seasoned maintainers will be doing the repair work, since senior people have been tapped for the program so far. But eventually those jobs will be done by two-stripers, said Bogdan. Such assumptions make a "huge difference" in cost over the 53 years for which the cost estimators are required to forecast. Bogdan asserted that opponents of the F-35 have "too many opinions, not enough facts." He considers himself an honest broker and is not afraid to tell bad news about the F-35, or in this case, good news.

Lemme get this straight... besides assuming the F-35B would run in STOVL mode most of the time, they also guessed that every maintainer would be promoted to NCO rank or higher? :lmao:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Sep 2013, 06:18

It is badly written if not an accurate quote I think but we have to get the gist somehow. Are wages of personnel included in these life cycle costs? I have not been following this issue closely because not enough is known about the parameters AFAIK. One day all will be revealed.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 20 Sep 2013, 09:55

spazsinbad wrote:It is badly written if not an accurate quote I think but we have to get the gist somehow. Are wages of personnel included in these life cycle costs? I have not been following this issue closely because not enough is known about the parameters AFAIK. One day all will be revealed.

I had always assumed that's why they track manhours, so they could arrive at a labor cost component for CPFH..