F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

[rotosequence]

Kind of hard to sabotage magnets without anyone noticing. Also kind of hard to get neodymium anywhere else.

If I recall correctly, Molycorp is supplying an abundance of rare earths via the Mountain Pass rare earth mine at this time.

[cantaz]

If I recall correctly, Molycorp is supplying an abundance of rare earths via the Mountain Pass rare earth mine at this time.

http://www.mining.com/molycorp-sees-rar ... ows-76116/

Mountain Pass is just starting back up. Given the time it takes to extract and refine the metals, and for them to be turned into whatever parts in question, then for those parts to end up in the F-35, it's very unlikely that availability via Mountain Pass were a factor.

[popcorn]

At least get it below the,$Trillion mark

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0 ... cline.html

Lockheed F-35’s Operating Cost Estimate to Decline

The Pentagon will decrease its $1.1 trillion estimate for the cost of supporting Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter jet over a 55-year lifespan, the top U.S. weapons buyer said. “It will drop to a number that’s not trivial but is not as much” a reduction “as I would like,” Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for acquisition, said today at a Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington. While debate over the aircraft, the costliest U.S. weapons system, has focused mostly on the price to develop and build the fighter, Pentagon agencies also have disputed its long-term operating costs, from spare parts to repairs. Kendall declined to elaborate on the reduced 55-year estimate by the department’s independent cost-assessment office. The figure will be released later this month in its next unclassified Selected Acquisition Report. Until then, the official projection is the $1.1 trillion formulated by that office three years ago. By contrast, the Pentagon’s F-35 program office estimates that the fleet will cost $857 billion to operate and support over its lifetime.

[gtx]

That was always a ridiculous number. It would be interesting to see what other platforms total to if measured the same way.

[sferrin]

That was always a ridiculous number. It would be interesting to see what other platforms total to if measured the same way.

From AvWeek 5/23/2011:

"That idea does not sit well with the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Ashton Carter, who says the Pentagon has no good alternative to the next-generation stealthy fighter, even though the cost to sustain the program into the future is an eye-popping $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation over its lifespan. That is less than the cost to sustain the F-22, about the same as the F-15, and more than either the F-16 or the F-18."

They didn't say if they were figuring the same number of years though. (30 for the F-15 and 50 for the F-35? Who knows?) Or what size fleet. Too many unknowns.

[luke_sandoz]

That was always a ridiculous number. It would be interesting to see what other platforms total to if measured the same way.

"The most expensive military procurement in history" is also the only military procurement costed using that methodology.

Wonder what the numbers would be for the SSNs, or B-52s or. . . . .

Just a nice drive by smear number employed by the POGO types to con the Rubes. Cdn journos take notice! You have been sucker punched and seem happy about it.

[spazsinbad]

Next Battle for F-35: Bring Down Operations Costs 06 Apr 2014 Sandra I. Erwin

"...“The government is encouraging us to look at ways in which we can reduce the life cycle cost of the aircraft,” said Steve O'Bryan, vice president of business development at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

“There are lots of opportunities to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

No one should expect any miracles, however. “This is just the beginning,” said O’Bryan. The projected operations and support, or O&S, costs include many variables that are impossible for the manufacturer to control, such as fuel prices and the rate of U.S. inflation, O’Bryan said. The Pentagon’s O&S estimates for the F-35 have ranged from $850 billion to $1.1 trillion over 55 years. “Over 40 percent of that estimate is inflation alone,” he said. The company is targeting areas where it believes it could reduce O&S cost, he said, such as the fuel consumption, contracting methods and reliability of aircraft components.

Pentagon acquisitions chief Frank Kendall told Bloomberg News last week that he expects O&S cost estimates to come down slightly, but not as much as he would like....

...A much ballyhooed “automatic logistics information system,” or ALIS, was designed to help manage O&S costs, but the software is running behind schedule. ALIS would collect and distribute critical data about aircraft components' performance over their entire life cycle.

Bogdan said the system has been redesigned. “We've fundamentally changed the way we're developing the ALIS system, our logistics information system, and we're starting to see some incremental improvements there.”

O’Bryan explained the ALIS system would provide valuable information on the reliability of components, and help to prevent costly repairs. “That could mean big savings fleet wide,” he said. “Reliability is a big driver.”

Another way to reduce operations costs is to shift pilot training to simulators, O’Bryan said. Moving flying hours to simulators, though, inflates the per-hour cost of flying. “If you fly less, you're absorbing fixed costs over fewer hours,” he said. “That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to move more of the training to simulation.”...

SOURCE: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1459

[sferrin]

That was always a ridiculous number. It would be interesting to see what other platforms total to if measured the same way.

"The most expensive military procurement in history" is also the only military procurement costed using that methodology.

Wonder what the numbers would be for the SSNs, or B-52s or. . . . .

Just a nice drive by smear number employed by the POGO types to con the Rubes. Cdn journos take notice! You have been sucker punched and seem happy about it.

You can always tell which way they're biased. Just look for "most expensive program in history" in the article. It's almost a given for the anti-F35 / liberal crowd.

[Corsair1963]

That was always a ridiculous number. It would be interesting to see what other platforms total to if measured the same way.

"The most expensive military procurement in history" is also the only military procurement costed using that methodology.

Wonder what the numbers would be for the SSNs, or B-52s or. . . . .

Just a nice drive by smear number employed by the POGO types to con the Rubes. Cdn journos take notice! You have been sucker punched and seem happy about it.

You can always tell which way they're biased. Just look for "most expensive program in history" in the article. It's almost a given for the anti-F35 / liberal crowd.

LOL- I always love when they call the F-35 the "Most Expensive Program in History". Well, considering the F-35 is three very different models designed to replace several aircraft. (A-10, AV-8B, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc. etc. etc.) What did they think it was going to be cheap!

[sferrin]

LOL- I always love when they call the F-35 the "Most Expensive Program in History". Well, considering the F-35 is three very different models designed to replace several aircraft. (A-10, AV-8B, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc. etc. etc.) What did they think it was going to be cheap!

Exactly! If one were to try to imagine what "the most expensive program in history" would be, it would be tough to come up with a category that would fit better. Maybe if we'd actually built the nuclear Orion space battleships or something that might qualify, but aside from that, this would be it.

[XanderCrews]

LOL- I always love when they call the F-35 the "Most Expensive Program in History". Well, considering the F-35 is three very different models designed to replace several aircraft. (A-10, AV-8B, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc. etc. etc.) What did they think it was going to be cheap!

Exactly! If one were to try to imagine what "the most expensive program in history" would be, it would be tough to come up with a category that would fit better. Maybe if we'd actually built the nuclear Orion space battleships or something that might qualify, but aside from that, this would be it.

I seem to recall in the "battle of the x planes" it was already known it would be the largest and most expensive contract in history, before there was even a declared winnner in the competition. Thats why both sides really wanted to win.

[Corsair1963]

LOL- I always love when they call the F-35 the "Most Expensive Program in History". Well, considering the F-35 is three very different models designed to replace several aircraft. (A-10, AV-8B, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc. etc. etc.) What did they think it was going to be cheap!

Exactly! If one were to try to imagine what "the most expensive program in history" would be, it would be tough to come up with a category that would fit better. Maybe if we'd actually built the nuclear Orion space battleships or something that might qualify, but aside from that, this would be it.

Plus, the overall cost of the Program vs Unit Cost are two very different animals. As a matter of fact the former was never going to be cheap. For the reasons I provided in my earlier post and many more. As for the latter it's going to be reasonable and cheaper than many contemporaries that are far less capable.

[Corsair1963]

LOL- I always love when they call the F-35 the "Most Expensive Program in History". Well, considering the F-35 is three very different models designed to replace several aircraft. (A-10, AV-8B, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc. etc. etc.) What did they think it was going to be cheap!

Exactly! If one were to try to imagine what "the most expensive program in history" would be, it would be tough to come up with a category that would fit better. Maybe if we'd actually built the nuclear Orion space battleships or something that might qualify, but aside from that, this would be it.

I seem to recall in the "battle of the x planes" it was already known it would be the largest and most expensive contract in history, before there was even a declared winnner in the competition. Thats why both sides really wanted to win.

Well, again considering the sheer size of the F-35 Program. Plus, the fact that it was going to be the most Advance Fighter ever developed. Again what did everyone think.......

[zerion]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/gao- ... -fighters/

GAO: F-35 unaffordable 
WASHINGTON: The F-35′s long-term costs may “not be affordable” and appear to be substantially higher than those of the existing combat aircraft fleets that the Joint Strike Fighter will replace, the Government Acocuntability Office says in a draft report.

“The annual F-35 operating and support costs are estimated to be considerably higher than the combined annual costs of several legacy aircraft,” the draft says. This issue is likely to be a topic of debate at the JSF Executive Steering Board meetings to begin Thursday in Oslo, Norway. The nine countries that invested in the F-35′s development will hold bilateral meetings on Wednesday. Then they gather in the shadow of the Norwegian parliament as a group the next day.

The estimated gap between the F-35 sustainment costs and those of the F/A-18, F-15, F-16 and the Harrier fleets as measured in 2010 is impressive, about $8.8 billion, an increase of 79 percent. That estimate comes from the Pentagon’s authoritative Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, the GAO draft report says. The draft says that costs for the legacy fleet were about $11 billion a year in 2010. Based on CAPE’s estimate, the F-35′s annual costs will be $19.9 billion in 2012 dollars...

[bumtish]

The estimated gap between the F-35 sustainment costs and those of the F/A-18, F-15, F-16 and the Harrier fleets as measured in 2010 is impressive, about $8.8 billion, an increase of 79 percent. That estimate comes from the Pentagon’s authoritative Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, the GAO draft report says. The draft says that costs for the legacy fleet were about $11 billion a year in 2010. Based on CAPE’s estimate, the F-35′s annual costs will be $19.9 billion in 2012 dollars...

Kool. But that information was also in the recent SAR released earlier this year.

$597773.6M /30 yr = $19.9 billion/yr in 2012 dollars

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... 13-SAR.pdf

Page 94.

I predict the GAO report to look like this http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf

But congrats to the journo on the breaking story! Now we can have another iteration of F-35A vs F-16C CPFH comparisons on the same data reported with different angle!