F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:32
by SpudmanWP
A fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighters will cost $857 billion over 55 years to operate and support, 22 percent less than previously estimated, according to the head of the Pentagon office developing the plane.

The new estimate reflects the aircraft’s performance in 5,000 test flights over 7,000 hours, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.

“The previous cost estimate did not factor in this new knowledge,” Bogdan said.

Operating costs include expenses from spare parts to repairs and fuel. Officially, the Pentagon’s estimate remains $1.1 trillion, a two-year-old projection developed by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-2 ... mates.html

RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:48
by shingen
I thought we had it on good authority from Typhoon and Rafale fanboys that the F-35 would be more expensive than those superior aircraft.

Perhaps they were wrong.

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:00
by rotosequence
shingen wrote:I thought we had it on good authority from Typhoon and Rafale fanboys that the F-35 would be more expensive than those superior aircraft.

Perhaps they were wrong.


It's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin or The Pentagon (or both) are lying through their teeth in an effort to protect a program that they see to be at real risk from the FY2014 cuts to military spending ($40 billion).

It's possible that they're truly getting the F-35's costs under control, but historical precedent suggests other, less positive possibilities.

RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:01
by SpudmanWP
I wonder if the Canadian ~$40 Billion lifetime cost took these new numbers into account?

RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:39
by lookieloo
Trying to predict costs over a 50-year period is idiotic whether the numbers or good or bad. One can simply make up any figures depending on agendas in a given place at a given time.

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:52
by XanderCrews
rotosequence wrote:
shingen wrote:I thought we had it on good authority from Typhoon and Rafale fanboys that the F-35 would be more expensive than those superior aircraft.

Perhaps they were wrong.


It's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin or The Pentagon (or both) are lying through their teeth in an effort to protect a program that they see to be at real risk from the FY2014 cuts to military spending ($40 billion).

It's possible that they're truly getting the F-35's costs under control, but historical precedent suggests other, less positive possibilities.


We have also seen LRIP and concurrency retrofit costs being lowered as well though... Costs are lowering.

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 21:20
by Prinz_Eugn
lookieloo wrote:Trying to predict costs over a 50-year period is idiotic whether the numbers or good or bad. One can simply make up any figures depending on agendas in a given place at a given time.


Are you saying predicting the future fifty years from now isn't a realistic goal?

Excuse me, I have go dispute all those psychic hotline charges on my phone bill.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 21:46
by spazsinbad
F-35 operating cost drops below $1 trillion -source 21 Aug 2013
"Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now estimates it will cost $857 billion to operate and maintain a fleet of more than 2,000 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets over 55 years, a drop of more than 20 percent from the previous estimate of more than $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official.

The new estimate reflects actual data about the airplane's performance and revised assumptions about how it will be used in combat...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... OP20130821

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 22:01
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:F-35 operating cost drops below $1 trillion -source 21 Aug 2013
"Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now estimates it will cost $857 billion to operate and maintain a fleet of more than 2,000 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets over 55 years, a drop of more than 20 percent from the previous estimate of more than $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official.

The new estimate reflects actual data about the airplane's performance and revised assumptions about how it will be used in combat...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... OP20130821
Key phrase being "revised assumptions," because 50-year guesses were never based on anything more than vague assumptions. I could assume that the airframes will disintegrate after 5000 hrs and dare anyone to prove me wrong, seeing as no F-35 has reached that milestone yet.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 22:50
by spazsinbad
More to the above story perhaps in some minor detail otherwise....

Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD 21 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
"PENTAGON: By combing through the assumptions — some of them deeply questionable — undergirding the Defense Department’s official cost estimates for the F-35B and refining them, the Marines say the plane should cost 16.6 percent less per flight hour than the current estimate. Since the F-35B is the most expensive plane to operate, lowering these cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter’s Marine version would have a substantial impact on the program’s overall costs.

“We believe we are going to achieve much greater savings than we are currently being credited for,” Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy commandant for aviation, told me in an interview here.

Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.

...The great majority of the plane’s flight time — ... — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL.

The current CAPE estimate assumes $41,000 an hour for the F-35B. a senior defense official said they will eventually bring the costs down to $30,000 per hour, with an interim figure of about $37,000. Schmidle also notes that the F-35B’s cost figures were extrapolated from the costs of the much older AV-8B Harrier.

Overall, once the F-35 replaces the three Marine aircraft — F-18, EA-6B, Harrier — it is designed to supplant the Marines will save an estimated $520 million a year in operations and maintenance costs in 2012 dollars, Schmidle says...."

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/21/m ... -than-osd/

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:13
by hb_pencil
SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if the Canadian ~$40 Billion lifetime cost took these new numbers into account?


No, they did not. They used the old CAPE numbers, which will be revised when the official numbers actually are released.

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:29
by geogen
lookieloo wrote:Trying to predict costs over a 50-year period is idiotic whether the numbers or good or bad. One can simply make up any figures depending on agendas in a given place at a given time.


Exactly. Thanks for that valid input.

Also, the article specifically notes the 55-year cost for "a fleet" will be $857B.

Well, what is the exact numeric size of 'this fleet' being estimated cost-wise??

Perhaps also, how many annual flight hours are being calculated into this 'latest' revised cost estimate?

I mean c'mon, let's please be out in the open and honest in a little more detail about these fairly significant claims so one can put an actual finger on them?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:49
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.
OMFG!!! You've gotta be $hitting me! :lmao: I mean... I knew CAPE's figure was vague speculation at best, but what the hell? Did they hire Boeing to do their work, or are they really just that stupid?

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:53
by quicksilver
geogen wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Trying to predict costs over a 50-year period is idiotic whether the numbers or good or bad. One can simply make up any figures depending on agendas in a given place at a given time.


Exactly. Thanks for that valid input.

Also, the article specifically notes the 55-year cost for "a fleet" will be $857B.

Well, what is the exact numeric size of 'this fleet' being estimated cost-wise??

Perhaps also, how many annual flight hours are being calculated into this 'latest' revised cost estimate?

I mean c'mon, let's please be out in the open and honest in a little more detail about these fairly significant claims so one can put an actual finger on them?


And we can assume you were asking the same thing when the $1T+ numbers were being thrown around, right?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 01:15
by castlebravo
Funny how the anti-JSF crowd never thought estimating 50 years into the future was stupid when the figure was higher. Bottom line is that experience with the actual jet has taught them that it costs less to operate than they previously thought when they wrote up the trillion dollar estimate.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 03:44
by popcorn
Let's see.. 2,456 jets costing $396B projected to incur $857B in O&S expense over 55 years.. a ratio of 1 : 2.164. Paging Sen McCain...LOL


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html

Feb. 23, 2013

Pentagon says it has grounded all new F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin after an inspection found a crack in a turbine blade in the engine of one of the planes; decision comes as the Pentagon estimates that it could spend as much as $396 billion to buy 2,456 jets by the late 2030s, but program is plagued by cost overruns and delays and could easily become a target for budget cuts

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 04:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
put into perspective, that's not bad at ALL

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 05:13
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Trying to predict costs over a 50-year period is idiotic whether the numbers or good or bad. One can simply make up any figures depending on agendas in a given place at a given time.


Exactly. Thanks for that valid input.

Also, the article specifically notes the 55-year cost for "a fleet" will be $857B.

Well, what is the exact numeric size of 'this fleet' being estimated cost-wise??

Perhaps also, how many annual flight hours are being calculated into this 'latest' revised cost estimate?

I mean c'mon, let's please be out in the open and honest in a little more detail about these fairly significant claims so one can put an actual finger on them?


If you're seriously asking these questions at this point, perhaps you should just exit the boards. You know exactly how many aircraft they intend to buy, and I'm pretty sure you can figure out what is the lifetime hours of an F-35 is. You come on here and pretend to know how to better run a fighter recapitalization progam/fleet management, surely figuring out these basic facts shouldn't trouble you.

Otherwise you're just being obsequious about you own position, trying to claim we don't know how many they will actually buy while trying to dismiss the fact the cost estimates are declining.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 05:18
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.
OMFG!!! You've gotta be $hitting me! :lmao: I mean... I knew CAPE's figure was vague speculation at best, but what the hell? Did they hire Boeing to do their work, or are they really just that stupid?


Had the exact same thought, I mean wow.

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 05:26
by hb_pencil
rotosequence wrote:
shingen wrote:I thought we had it on good authority from Typhoon and Rafale fanboys that the F-35 would be more expensive than those superior aircraft.

Perhaps they were wrong.


It's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin or The Pentagon (or both) are lying through their teeth in an effort to protect a program that they see to be at real risk from the FY2014 cuts to military spending ($40 billion).

It's possible that they're truly getting the F-35's costs under control, but historical precedent suggests other, less positive possibilities.


Unlikely.

This has been one of the big problems with the F-35 program; so much of what it's doing is unprecedented for a jet fighter. The F-35 is significantly different from the maintenance approach that the F-16 or F/A-18E uses. Rather it uses one that a civil airliner would; with extensive contractor support at the depot level, and a prognostic parts behavior system. CAPE utilized parametric data for a lot of their assumptions, using data for the F-16D and AV-8 to guess how much it would cost to run the F-35. However the F-35 is a completely different beast when it comes to O&M and back in 2011 LM and I think the PEO had complained that the figures were not accurate due to the fundamental difference.

What's the factors behind this decline in costs? Basically its the replacement of the assumptions made by CAPE with cold hard data. The two operational squadrons at Eglin and Yuma have been putting these aircraft through their paces and based on that information number crunchers at the program office and DoD are refining their figures. And from what's been stated, the Marines are really pushing these aircraft to their limits.

This isn't a new news thing actually. CAPE had suggested the F-35 was 30% above legacy aircraft. Earlier this year Bogdan suggested that it was only 10% more than the F-16. Now he's saying its 8%.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:20
by zero-one
spazsinbad wrote:The new estimate reflects actual data about the airplane's performance and revised assumptions about how it will be used in combat...."



Any idea on what these revisions were? I'm just speculatiung here, but they could be sugesting that it won't be used for many Air superiority missions anymore, atleast not as much as was originally intended.

And if it will be, it would be strictly BVR hit and run tactics. Very little high G maneuvers, thus prolonging the life of the airframe.

WVR may be tasked for more capable F-22s, Typhoons, Rafales and Super Hornets.

I hope I'm wrong,
because if thats the case, we could be caught in Vietnam all over again

The idea that the Aim9X Block 3 needs to have more BVR capability because "of the specific needs of the F-35" (notice that the Super Hornet seems to not need this capability)

and now this. Well, seems a bit interesting.

still, I'm most probably wrong and simply paranoid

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 07:40
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.
OMFG!!! You've gotta be $hitting me! :lmao: I mean... I knew CAPE's figure was vague speculation at best, but what the hell? Did they hire Boeing to do their work, or are they really just that stupid?


I'm thinking the CAPE analyst should really stop, watching Bruce Willis vs. F-35B on Youtube. :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 08:03
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.
OMFG!!! You've gotta be $hitting me! :lmao: I mean... I knew CAPE's figure was vague speculation at best, but what the hell? Did they hire Boeing to do their work, or are they really just that stupid?
I'm thinking the CAPE analyst should really stop, watching Bruce Willis vs. F-35B on Youtube. :lol:
Or Hulk vs F-35B... I wouldn't be surprised if they later try to factor-in maintenance-costs for 2X internal cannon... or angry, green monsters rampaging across flight-decks. Sweetman could do a piece on "HULK-SMASH vulnerabilities."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 08:54
by rotosequence
lookieloo wrote:Or Hulk vs F-35B... I wouldn't be surprised if they later try to factor-in maintenance-costs for 2X internal cannon... or angry, green monsters rampaging across flight-decks. Sweetman could do a piece on "HULK-SMASH vulnerabilities."


Only if they revert the design changes to the lift fan door and place a second 25mm cannon on the port side. ;)

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 09:13
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The new estimate reflects actual data about the airplane's performance and revised assumptions about how it will be used in combat...."



Any idea on what these revisions were? I'm just speculatiung here, but they could be sugesting that it won't be used for many Air superiority missions anymore, atleast not as much as was originally intended.

And if it will be, it would be strictly BVR hit and run tactics. Very little high G maneuvers, thus prolonging the life of the airframe.

WVR may be tasked for more capable F-22s, Typhoons, Rafales and Super Hornets.

I hope I'm wrong,
because if thats the case, we could be caught in Vietnam all over again

The idea that the Aim9X Block 3 needs to have more BVR capability because "of the specific needs of the F-35" (notice that the Super Hornet seems to not need this capability)

and now this. Well, seems a bit interesting.

still, I'm most probably wrong and simply paranoid


My hunch is that the idea in AIM-9 Block 3 is to maximize the stealth and SA advantage of F-35 in all combat and to be able to launch all the missiles before enemy is able to detect the F-35. Why get close where both sides have equal opportunities, when you can have the upper hand with longer range missiles? Besides, Block 3 is supposed to retain all the close-in capabilities of earlier AIM-9X variants. Longer range would also result in larger no-escape-zone meaning higher chance of actually hitting the enemy aircraft in all ranges of combat.

Super Hornet is probably not seen that important as the IOC for Block 3 is slated to be 2022, if no delays happen, with FOC probably few years after that. Current plans are to retire Super Hornets somewhere in 2030-2035 time frame, although this might be extended somewhat. Also F-35C might be seen as the main weapon system for USN when Block 3 will be in service, and has the priority. It also has much more capability to use the longer range of Block 3 missile with DAS and EOTS sensors without using the radar. Of course there is nothing stopping using Block 3 missiles in Super Hornets once integration to weapon system is done, but it won't benefit as much unless IRST system is installed.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 09:38
by geogen
popcorn wrote:Let's see.. 2,456 jets costing $396B projected to incur $857B in O&S expense over 55 years.. a ratio of 1 : 2.164. Paging Sen McCain...LOL


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html

Feb. 23, 2013

Pentagon says it has grounded all new F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin after an inspection found a crack in a turbine blade in the engine of one of the planes; decision comes as the Pentagon estimates that it could spend as much as $396 billion to buy 2,456 jets by the late 2030s, but program is plagued by cost overruns and delays and could easily become a target for budget cuts


The $396B estimate is probably a bit shy.

That is, something will likely need to give on this $396B estimate which apparently includes Program development costs (through Block V? VI?) + Procurement of 2,440+ units.

e.g., it's probably implying around what, $66B for total Program development(?); which would imply an avg of around $135m per Total Procurement Unit Cost for all variants? Yet, the current avg Procurement Unit Cost today is around, what, $195m +/-?? So yeah, I'm just skeptical of back-end average PUC/Weapon System Costs in, say the $120m ballpark (all variants) as would be necessary to balance out the overall Program average of this $135m est., e.g..

And this 'discounted' $37,000 per flight hour estimate for the F-35B? I just hope one can comprehend where some of the head scratching is coming from over such discrepancies of expected 2,400+ units procured, w/ high hourly operating costs, yet now substantially reduced, affordable total estimated operating cost over the 55 year period...

So please forgive the questions being raised (not trying to be the wise guy or smart); only that something will seemingly need to give here. Either equally reduced flying hours (and perhaps less aggressive flying) to achieve such 'discounts,' and/or substantially reduced Program procurement from the 2,440 figure?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:01
by spazsinbad
F-35 CAPE B.S. Cost Estimates Proven to be.... B.S. 21 Aug 2013 SMSgt Mac
H/T Spudman at F-16.net and Colin Clark at AOL Breaking Defense
"Not that I told you so...But I told you so....

...Heh. Now we get to see how long it takes for the CAPE estimates to actually go down, now that their 'problematic' nature has been found out.. My bet is it will be done gracefully over time, IF they can get away with slow-rolling this discovery.

Production costs going down. Support costs going down...."

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... en-to.html

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:08
by quicksilver
So, you just had this epiphany about cost estimates?

There is nothing sacrosanct about the first estimate, or the second, or the third, etc. You seem to have swallowed the first as gospel.

This is not rocket science. All of these estimates are based on certain assumptions about a wide range of factors. As the Marine Corps discovered when they scrutinized the GR&A, some were entirely unrealistic and were thus driving similarly unrealistic estimates.

As has been discussed at length around here, the USB acknowledges 5 different cpfh methodologies, the most conservative of which can exceed the lowest estimate by ~100%. Any of those estimates can be used in a longer term O and S methodology and can result in widely different outcomes.

The more they learn about how the aircraft performs and how it operates and how it can be maintained, the more fidelity they can bring to some of the estimates.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:35
by popcorn
I would be curious to know how much of a reduction in O&S costs arise from the increasing use of computer simulation for training. If they do achieve a 50-50 split of actual flying vs. simulator time, that should account for a big saving.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:53
by hornetfinn
It seems to me that all the estimates related to almost everything in F-35 program have been conservative to have room for error and avoid backlash of not meeting the estimates in real life. Things like having artificial restrictions (degraded engine and restricted fuel flow) in calculating engine performance that are lifted when program matures. Even that engine power restriction would result in significantly higher cost than happens in real life as it would increase fuel usage and affect flight performance which would result higher usage of afterburner.

Other thing is that IIRC the lifetime cost estimates have been calculated using target year (TY) cost with 2 percent inflation (each year flight hour costs 2 percent more than in previous year). But it means that last flight hours will have a cost figure about 3 times more than the first flight hours. This might be true but the real cost will still be exactly the same in both first and last flight hour. Most people don't seem to understand this and only think in current year (2013) monetary value as that's what they are used to. But problem is that this gives almost two times too high cost figure in today's dollar value.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 11:24
by geogen
Just consider however, that some customers might have a more strict budget requirement for actual procurement and hourly flight costs and might need estimates which are more reliable and acceptable to within tighter and fixed budget constraints. Customer X,Y,Z might just not have all the liberties with allowing for certain cost estimate creep and methodologies ending up being widely off? So in this case, perhaps more reliable 'affordable' operational/procurement cost estimates 'i.e. known cost' is a critical factor. $37,000/hr for the F-35B alone, even if reliable, is going to be a huge cost increase for probably all operators.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 11:47
by hornetfinn
Cost increase compared to what? If you need STOVL capability, there are absolutely no alternatives available anywhere. If you don't need that capability, just buy F-35A or even C that have significantly lower flight hour costs. F-35A seems to be very close to F-16C in flight hour costs according to this new information.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 15:48
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The new estimate reflects actual data about the airplane's performance and revised assumptions about how it will be used in combat...."



Any idea on what these revisions were? I'm just speculatiung here, but they could be sugesting that it won't be used for many Air superiority missions anymore, atleast not as much as was originally intended.

And if it will be, it would be strictly BVR hit and run tactics. Very little high G maneuvers, thus prolonging the life of the airframe.

WVR may be tasked for more capable F-22s, Typhoons, Rafales and Super Hornets.

I hope I'm wrong,
because if thats the case, we could be caught in Vietnam all over again

The idea that the Aim9X Block 3 needs to have more BVR capability because "of the specific needs of the F-35" (notice that the Super Hornet seems to not need this capability)

and now this. Well, seems a bit interesting.

still, I'm most probably wrong and simply paranoid


I wouldn't read that much into it. If its true about how they estimated the F-35B cost, I have no clue what else they overestimated. They probably think the tires and breaks are changed after every flight :lol:

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 16:11
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Just consider however, that some customers might have a more strict budget requirement for actual procurement and hourly flight costs and might need estimates which are more reliable and acceptable to within tighter and fixed budget constraints.


In which case they should completely ignore CAPE, which so far was an estimate based on horrible understanding of how the aircraft was actually operated, and is slowly being disproven by actual flight number. %22 percent sounds pretty close until you think about being wrong by hundreds of billions.

Customer X,Y,Z might just not have all the liberties with allowing for certain cost estimate creep and methodologies ending up being widely off? So in this case, perhaps more reliable 'affordable' operational/procurement cost estimates 'i.e. known cost' is a critical factor. $37,000/hr for the F-35B alone, even if reliable, is going to be a huge cost increase for probably all operators.


LOL WUT? I'm shotgunning coffee trying to wake up, but you are going to have to translate that for me. Because the previous estimate was 41K the "interim" (?) is 37K and the final is looking to be 30K. either way I bet the countries that were banking on 41K are happy with 37K as it is actually less than previously estimated. in Geogen land, this is bad for some reason. Now I'm not expert, but I bet that the countries that were already willing to pay 41K are probably able to afford 37K. I don't know how that is a "huge increase" for all operators

Haters gonna hate:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -salt.html

Turns out its all a Marine Corps conspiracy now, and STOVL is a "secondary capability" LOL You mean its not primarily used to float around at 30 knots everywhere it goes? this is like the USN conspiracy to put a tail hook on everything and only use it on landing (and even then onlt carriers!) instead of hanging it out there 80 percent of the time. And don't get me started on the need to be able to launch them from the ship :lol:

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 17:33
by hb_pencil
popcorn wrote:I would be curious to know how much of a reduction in O&S costs arise from the increasing use of computer simulation for training. If they do achieve a 50-50 split of actual flying vs. simulator time, that should account for a big saving.


It would have a very small effect. CFPF is a constant; a plane will require the same amount maintenence, fuel, parts regardless of what mission it flies. Flying training missions means you just go through those hours more quickly. That ages the aircraft prematurely, so that means you get to the higher cost hours earlier... but you're generally not going to fly it past its projected hours of life.

What this means is that with more simulators you are paying less to maintain a capability (because you're flying less hours) but that the cost of flying that capability does not change (basically... might go either way, but thats an extended discussion).

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 20:52
by spazsinbad
'verylongnamewithoutend' :D thanks for the Briganti link. I'm dumbstruck....

"...The Marine Corps has also radically changed its F-35 operations to claim lower costs. Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, told Reuters that the Marines would fly their F-35Bs “in STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates.”

This is a stunning statement, and one that contradicts all the arguments that the Marine Corps has used to justify the F-35B STOVL variant. It also shows the lengths the Corps has to go to show it can afford to buy and operate the F-35.

Marines Plan to Reduce STOVL, MRO Manning
If STOVL is needed only 10% of the time, then it is, at best, a secondary capability, and is no longer enough to justify the F-35B variant’s exorbitant cost, both in terms of acquisition ($153 million, without engine, in LRIP Lot 5) and of operations ($41,000 per flight hour).

Furthermore, if STOVL operations are limited to 10% of flight activities, it is hard to see how Marine pilots will ever gain enough experience to fly STOVL missions from small, unprepared landing zones on the beachhead – the main, if not only, reason the Marine Corps says the F-35B is indispensable...."

Please note how we have segued from 'STOVL MODE' to 'STOVL operations' (for STOVL missions) somehow. Plus the LRIP 5 cost is used. What an asshat. I do not want to be critiqued by 'theforumpersonwithaverylongname' but it is sufficient otherwise for Briganti. :D
_____________________

ADDITION: I wonder where the "if 10% STOVL operations" quote comes from. What does it mean. To me STOVL ops is when the F-35B is in STOVL MODE, landing or taking off. Remember it is possible to land and take off in conventional mode in the F-35B - like a bleedin' F-35A :twisted: - which will be a lot of the disembarked time. Naval aircraft do come ashore for various reasons. It is sensible to rotate them so that all naval aircraft get approximately equal time at sea - because there be airframe/engine pounding there.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 21:01
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Please note how we have segued from 'STOVL MODE' to 'STOVL operations' (for STOVL missions) somehow. Plus the LRIP 5 cost is used. What an asshat. I do not want to be critiqued by 'theforumpersonwithaverylongname' but it is sufficient otherwise for Briganti. :D


beyond the operation of the aircraft its just bad journalism to attribute quotes to those that never said them, then call them a liar when they do actually say something that doesn't jive with what you attributed to them previously. would make for some interesting political campaign stories though. :lol:

Someone find where the Marine Corps ever said that the F-35B would be using the lift fan 80 percent of its flight.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 21:06
by spazsinbad
OK 'XanderCrews' it is clear the 80% quote but the 10%? I'll go look around. Anyway it does perhaps seem a reasonable guess but it is like asking 'how long is a piece of string'? The 'environmental impact statement' EIS gives training mission details but perhaps not percentages of flight time. And then there is operational. Probably the only people who can guess at this time would be the USMC.

On the first page of this thread this is what Colin Clark wrote:
"...Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy commandant for aviation, told me in an interview here.

Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air...."

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 21:36
by spazsinbad
10% quote is from the USMC....

Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source 22 Aug 2013
By Andrea Shalal-Esa REUTERS (Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Edwina Gibbs)
"...REDUCING COSTS
The cost per flying hour of the F-35B model, which can land like a helicopter, is likely be 16.6 percent lower than the earlier Pentagon projections, Lieutenant General Robert Schmidle, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

The Marines plan to start using the F-35B for military operations from mid-2015.

A second senior defense official said the current estimate by the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office put the cost per flying hour of the F-35B model at over $41,000, but the actual cost would likely be closer to $37,000.

A detailed analysis by the Marine Corps showed this would cut the plane's annual operating costs by nearly $600 million, or $12.3 billion over the next five decades, the official said.

Schmidle said the Marines would fly the planes in short takeoff, vertical landing, or STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates. The manning levels assumed in the initial estimates were also higher than in practice, he said.

"The Marine Corps has very aggressively stepped out in trying to find ways to decrease the operating and support costs, specifically with regard to the cost per flight hour," Schmidle said. "I wanted to challenge every assumption."

He said he was confident additional savings could be achieved in coming years through efforts by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp to lower the cost of operating the airplane's engine, in line with trends seen on other military aircraft programs.

He said the Marines also expected to trim maintenance costs by doing up to 90 percent of the work in house, rather than farming it out to contractors. Similar efforts had resulted in big savings on the V-22, the Marines' tilt-rotor aircraft, he said.

Schmidle said the Marine Corps' analysis forecast $520 million a year in lower maintenance and operating savings once the three other planes it now uses were replaced by the F-35, a process that is currently slated to be completed by 2030.

He said the impact of mandatory Pentagon budget cuts on the F-35 program remained unclear, but said the savings expected by replacing the existing AV8B Harriers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare jets and F/A-18 fighters with F-35s could make the case for accelerating that process."

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-cuts-f-3 ... 22974.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 06:09
by linkomart
Silly me,
first time I read it I thought that F35B is going to fly 10% of the time in STOVL mode? 10%?

Figured it meant that 10% of the time airborn, the fan will be engaged.

After reading it again (ok, and again) and including the 80% figure from earlier estimates I realised or that 10% of the missions will be STO with a VL.

Go figure, Marines spends 80% of their airborn time hovering over the beaches. Only makes sense if the're invading copacabana.....

my coffe break

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 06:49
by linkomart
This have been linked to earlier here (me think)

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/21/m ... -than-osd/
Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.


.... but it actually says that 80% of the flight will be in full trottle STVOL mode.....

...ok, so you don't fly a Fighter like a cessna 152, but the only way I can make this figure works is that it is an estimation that the overall fuelflow over a mission is aproximately equal to fuelflow at full trottle military.
Fuelflow is less than when in full AB, but more than in cruise....
I know some of you here are old pilots, does this seems like a reasonable estimation of the mission fuel?

Best Regards

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 06:50
by spazsinbad
Certainly is confusing but we do not have the statistics to even begin to work out 'how much time an F-35B is likely to be in STOVL MODE (which includes STO and VL time) during service life of the aircraft - on average). We could glean an idea from USMC Harrier usage but we do not know that - or at least I don't. If we knew that statistic we could then reduce that STOVL MODE time even further because as mentioned earlier the F-35B will land ashore most often on long runways in conventional flight mode (and takeoff in conventional mode). Recall that it is not going to be necessary to practice Vertical Landings; and to remain current so strictly, as was required in the Harrier by the USMC - because STOVL MODE, including VL, is much easier in the F-35B. This fact has been drummed into us from the beginning. IMHO even 10% of total flight time in STOVL MODE in the F-35B is overkill.

If in any STOVL Mode flight an F-35B is in STO Mode for five minutes or less with a VL probably taking up any slack to suggest 10 minutes total in any flight in STOVL mode. Then how long is the average STOVL flight? How long is a piece of string.

And I'm not forgetting that a lot of the ordinary takeoffs will not be in A/B because of noise reduction and also it is likely the AUW will not require A/B unless at really heavy AUW or on short runways. We have been told at internal stores weight but otherwise clean the aircraft accelerates well without A/B in ordinary flight conditions (not ACM or climbing or whatever use requires A/B). I'll guess the USMC are figuring all these details out now and will give the 'powers that be' these statistics as required. But as always early days. I'll repeat: Jet Pilots like to conserve fuel as best they can and expend the fuel judiciously in A/B or full power as required. A carrier pilot will always like to get back to the carrier at Maximum Arrest Landing Weight and they practice that skill ashore also - however they may always land at less than that max. weight - I speak of an ideal. There are no prizes for running out of fuel in a miljet. It does happen but probably not a lot in this day and age as far as I can tell - some USN Hornet pilots have got close when ashore on cross country divert flights.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 07:06
by lookieloo
10% STOVL-mode run-time on a one hour mission is 6 minutes split between takeoff and landing... not all that difficult to imagine. Of course, let's just assume that refers to the percentage of flights; that would still mean CAPE is simply making idiotic guesses because the F-35 can operate conventionally when the feature is not needed, whereas the Harrier must use it every time.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 10:27
by delvo
lookieloo wrote:F-35 can operate conventionally when the feature is not needed, whereas the Harrier must use it every time.
Why?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 11:11
by spazsinbad
Why? A recent reference to this article may provide a satisfactory answer. But you will have to read it. Or follow up on the thread where this article is mentioned first. Search the forum for 'Ewing' will find that thread. Short enough answer to 'Why?' ?

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical 07 Jun 2011 Philip Ewing
"...Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way...."

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockh ... -vertical/
___________________

Original citation here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... ewing.html (read this thread)

With follow on page graphics here by way of illustration:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... g&start=15

Rather than rely on what is reposted here it will be best to read the thread above.

Note NOZZLES (sometimes fixed/variable) used in the NATOPS graphics:

Image

Image

Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:36
by redbird87
It's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin or The Pentagon (or both) are lying through their teeth in an effort to protect a program that they see to be at real risk from the FY2014 cuts to military spending ($40 billion).

It's possible that they're truly getting the F-35's costs under control, but historical precedent suggests other, less positive possibilities.


Boy there's an understatement. Lockheed and all the brass they've bought would say that a Martian invasion was imminent and that 2020 fly-away costs will be down to $25 million if they could get away with it to protect this dog. Nothing they say at this point has any credibility. Those who "love" the airplane, and LMT stockholders have little to worry about though, the fix is in on this program. The best that those of us who care about silly things like meeting budgets and production deadlines can hope for, is that the B and C versions will get cancelled and the USAF will get a larger, longer running A build, bringing costs down. I'm just praying it's half as effective as they claim into the late 2020s.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:41
by hornetfinn
To get better understanding of the O&S costs, consider this. The original CAPE office estimate of 1.1 trillion dollars was then year dollars. It was 617 billion dollars in target year (2012) dollars. That was calculated for 2,443 aircraft and I think the prediction was that 90 percent of the aircraft would reach 8,000 flight hours. Those calculations indicated that F-35A variant would have flight hour cost of 31,923 dollars (2012 dollars). Interesting is that the whole F-35 fleet is now predicted to have 22 percent smaller lifetime costs while F-35B is predicted to have 16.6 percent smaller flight hour cost. This seems to indicate that F-35A will have flight hour cost only very slightly (about 5-6 percent) above that of the F-16C when using the same metrics.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:47
by spazsinbad
SMSggt Mac has a go at Briganti and AvWeak...

F-35 Cost Estimates Drop; AvWeek Makes Motorboat Sounds 22 Aug 2013 SMSgt Mac
"But...But...But...But..."

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... makes.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:58
by hornetfinn
spazsinbad wrote:SMSggt Mac has a go at Briganti and AvWeak...


Only in the BrigantiWorld better data and understanding is actually less and assumptions are better than actual operational data... And of course STOVL aircraft should only be flying in STOVL mode... How stupid is this guy anyway? :oops:

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 15:14
by popcorn
Every little saving helps.. a million here, a million there...

http://news.yahoo.com/lockheed-eyes-40- ... 56591.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 15:24
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:SMSggt Mac has a go at Briganti and AvWeak...


Only in the BrigantiWorld better data and understanding is actually less and assumptions are better than actual operational data... And of course STOVL aircraft should only be flying in STOVL mode... How stupid is this guy anyway? :oops:


Similar warped logic that the lift fan would be dead weight during missions, resulting in a performance penalty. AvWeek should be ashamed of itself.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 15:49
by SpudmanWP
More news of another F-35 cost reduction.

http://goo.gl/a5Lkh2

(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) said it is close to an agreement with the Pentagon for a more portable and 40 percent cheaper version of the operations and logistics system that controls the F-35 fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program.

More at the jump.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 15:50
by SpudmanWP
hornetfinn wrote: Interesting is that the whole F-35 fleet is now predicted to have 22 percent smaller lifetime costs while F-35B is predicted to have 16.6 percent smaller flight hour cost.
The 22% references the entire O&S cost structure, including upgrades, while the F-35B 16% was just CPFH.

Apples and Oranges

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 16:00
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:SMSggt Mac has a go at Briganti and AvWeak...


Only in the BrigantiWorld better data and understanding is actually less and assumptions are better than actual operational data... And of course STOVL aircraft should only be flying in STOVL mode... How stupid is this guy anyway? :oops:


Similar warped logic that the lift fan would be dead weight during missions, resulting in a performance penalty. AvWeek should be ashamed of itself.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 16:16
by cola
hornetfinn wrote:Briganti... How stupid is this guy anyway? :oops:

Why?
hornetfinn wrote:This seems to indicate that F-35A will have flight hour cost only very slightly (about 5-6 percent) above that of the F-16C when using the same metrics.

What metric would that be?

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 17:09
by spazsinbad
Both 'popcorn' & 'SWP' have pointed to the same story that earlier was posted here in the 'Avionics' section (way back I had asked the mods to have a 'software' section or at least have software mentioned in a thread title - to no avail - so I pick 'Avionics' as a software grouping also but YMMV).

Lockheed eyes 40% savings on next F-35 logistics contract
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24464.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 17:29
by castlebravo
zero-one wrote:The idea that the Aim9X Block 3 needs to have more BVR capability because "of the specific needs of the F-35" (notice that the Super Hornet seems to not need this capability)


Adding more range to the AIM-9X is likely desired to maximize the F-35's unique ability to engage targets at any angle; an AIM-9X Block2 won't reach very far after making an abrupt 180° turn immediately after launch.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 18:11
by spazsinbad
Here is some old input to the 'cost' question....

USMC Eyeing F-35B Ops Cost Reductions 18 Jun 2013 Amy Butler
"...The Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) team told Congress in a May 31 selected acquisition report that the F-35A’s CPFH would be about $32,000, while the F-16C/D it would be replacing was far lower, at nearly $25,000. The report did not include a figure for the F-35B. However, Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, Marine Corps commandant for aviation, says that both the F-35A and B are expected to ultimately cost about 10% more than the aircraft they are replacing per hour of operation....

...The current CPFH for the B variant, which is slightly more than that of the F-35A as reported in the May acquisition report, is misrepresentative of how the Marine Corps will actually operate the aircraft, due to inaccurate assumptions behind the calculations, Schmidle tells Aviation Week, For example, the current figure assumes that the F-35B will be used in its short-takeoff-and-vertical landing mode, optimized for the Marine Corps’ use on small-deck amphibious ships, 80% of the time. Using the aircraft in this stressing mode prompts a fuel spike, adding cost to the figure.

In actuality, though, the F-35 B will operate in this mode “a small percentage of the time,” as aircraft will be rotated for use on land bases, for example, Schmidle says.

Also included in the CPFH is the price of ordnance projected to be dropped every year from the F-35B, which Schmidle says skews the resulting figure. Legacy figures do not include such a calculation, he adds.

However, the Marine Corps does not see the specialized engine being a reason that the F-35B should cost any more per flying hour to operate than the A model designed for Air Force use. “We are not convinced — in itself — that [the engine] will be a reason for a higher cost per flight hour,” Schmidle said. “We think, for example, that the cost per hour of the B variant will be in line with the other variants.”..."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 589302.xml

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 18:57
by redbird87
Nothing else about the cost of the B variant has been inline with the A variant, why should we believe this nonsense?

The very nature of the B variant, and all its extra complexity ENSURES that it's cost per hour will be significantly greater.

The B variant and what it has cost (and will cost) makes no sense what-so-ever. So the Marines want dedicated Marine CAS if they conduct a major landing against a hardened sophisticated enemy (something that hasn't happened since WWII)? DOES ANYONE think for a second that such a landing would not be supported by one, if not two fleet carriers? So the jar-heads could simply fly F-35Cs and or F/A-18s off the flat-tops, could they not? The jeep carriers can't protect themselves vs modern threats without full up ASW and Aegis support anyway, in which case there is going to be at least one and probably more fleet carriers in support as well. They should just relegate the Amphib carriers to rotary wing aircraft and save a bundle. The whole concept of the Corps needing F-35s capable of operating from the little carriers is hugely wasteful in the context of what else has to be sacrificed in the defense budget to make it happen and what little capability it really adds.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 20:19
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:SMSggt Mac has a go at Briganti and AvWeak...

F-35 Cost Estimates Drop; AvWeek Makes Motorboat Sounds 22 Aug 2013 SMSgt Mac
"But...But...But...But..."

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... makes.html
Note that it's been days now and FlightGlobal doesn't seem to have picked up the story at all.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 20:54
by XanderCrews
Nothing else about the cost of the B variant has been inline with the A variant, why should we believe this nonsense?

The very nature of the B variant, and all its extra complexity ENSURES that it's cost per hour will be significantly greater.


Whats the definition of "inline," whats the definition of "significantly" ?? Maybe he feels a difference of for example 5K extra an hour is inline, you feel its significant.

The B variant and what it has cost (and will cost) makes no sense what-so-ever. So the Marines want dedicated Marine CAS if they conduct a major landing against a hardened sophisticated enemy (something that hasn't happened since WWII)? DOES ANYONE think for a second that such a landing would not be supported by one, if not two fleet carriers?


STOVL is not something dreamed up by the USMC, its going to be used by many nations for fleet carriers like the UK and Italy with big bets placed on Japan and Italy in the future. plus Singapore who plans on keeping it land based.

This "America has CVNs so no one needs anything else" idea needs to be taken behind the shed and shot already

especially since the US is planning on curtailing its carriers here soon. There are also command and control issues of who controls what between CVNs and MEUs, but I don't feel like getting into that unless you want it explained.

So the jar-heads could simply fly F-35Cs and or F/A-18s off the flat-tops, could they not?


They already plan on doing that too. however, the other part of the plan is FOBs as well, where the F-35C won't help, and the B wins out. For the record the Marines offered to do STOVL operations on CVNs, and the navy rejected it not surprisingly.

They should just relegate the Amphib carriers to rotary wing aircraft and save a bundle.


sure, will the Navy be keeping and or adding more CVNs to support Marine ops in the future? perhaps chopping a CVN into an MEU?

The whole concept of the Corps needing F-35s capable of operating from the little carriers is hugely wasteful in the context of what else has to be sacrificed in the defense budget to make it happen


can you tell me what else and how much is being sacrificed? Just so I can compare the two prices? The price of the Marine corps having Bees vs the cost of additional carriers and buying Cs? I've been curious about that.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DRO

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 23:35
by cantaz
With the developing CVN shortage, the USMC's fixed-wing-capable amphibs will be expected to shoulder more weight than before.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 01:17
by popcorn
Exciting times for the USMC as they explore new CONOPs being made possible by new tech. The public has to divorce itself of the image of amphibious assault simply to storming across the beach to assault the enemy 10 miles inland. The Corps would retain this capability but most future scenarios likely emphasize the ability to project power hundreds of miles island. The concept of the Company Landing Team as demoed during BA 2012 to conduct raiding missions deep inland will capitalize on beefed up aviation capabilities featuring Osprey, CH-56K and F-35B. The new LHAs will bring even more aviation capabilities, relieving pressure on a CVN fleet that is coming under increasing pressure.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 01:44
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' thanks for reminding me. Often I see comments about the new 'aviation LHAs' as 'failures'. What is that about? Only two will be built and then the next will revert to original design. 'So what' I say, no failure there - however I do not understand the comment. Thanks. If you are not able to explain that is OK. I feel your pain. :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 02:40
by redbird87
f414...you can write all the long pick-apart posts you want and popcorn you can talk warmly about new CONOPs, but it doesn't change the fiscal realities we are dealing with here.

Sure the F-35B is a very nice to have asset for the USMC, but it is not something that is AT ALL necessary and irreplaceable for our national defense. It's like, I would love to have a shiny new Corvette Stingray, but I don't "need" one. The F-35 is only really needed in high intensity conflicts. Of how much value are the amphib ships with a few F-35s in such conflicts compared to what else that amount of money could be invested in? In fact, can you think of any major war scenario where they are going to be the difference makers?

In the Pacific vs the Chinese (which has about a 1% chance of ever happening considering how much our economies are intertwined), the carrier groups are either going to be survivable or not. If they prove to be survivable, they will provide ample airpower platforms and we'd be better off with more F-35C squadrons to cycle into these platforms. If fleet carriers are proven to be non survivable, then the jeep carriers are certainly going to be decimated as well. If this conflict is the high-end IAD war we are concerned with, we'd be MUCH better off investing the billions that went into the F-35B into buying more F-22s, or a next gen bomber, or more VA class subs, among other things. War with North Korea? Nope, the F-35B adds nothing there that couldn't be done better by the C variant off of fleet carriers. Deep penetration missions in Iran? Nope, again better done by the C variant which carries more ordnance, or better yet USAF aircraft. So what does that leave us with? In what kind of high end threat conflict is the F-35B off of amphib ships going to be the difference maker? Again, it's nice to have, but it's value in a high intensity war is not commensurate with how much it is costing us. Not even close.

In a less than high intensity conflict, we'd be much better off spending the funds allocated to the F-35B on a gap filling lot of the latest block of F/A-18s and drones since significant numbers of F-35Cs won't some online until the 2020s. And those of you that think this stubby winged, low payload bird that glows at both ends when viewed through modern and future passive sensors is going to be a war winner into the 30s and 40s need to have your head examined. We currently have 181 true 21st century air superiority aircraft.

Think how many more could have be purchased with what we have spent to get the USMC their Corvette Stingray:-(

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 02:56
by count_to_10
Redbird, the F-35B is C&C and CAS for amphibious assaults for the USMC, which can really be at all levels of conflict, but is also sea control for the British and Italians (and anyone else thinking of deploying STOVL carriers).
Chances are, the F-35B will be able to beat anything it flies against in air-to-air in the '20s, and probably into the '30s.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:04
by redbird87
Yes Count, but again, are we ever going to conduct serious amphibious operations without ample fleet carrier support? Of course not, that's ludicrous. Marines could fly off of the flattops with Cs and carry more ordnance and have better endurance. So for the cost to our country for the F-35B, what have we sacrificed? And I could really care less about the Italians and Brits. I also disagree that it will be superior into the 30s, but as you probably know, that has more to do with total system employed (pilot training, tankers, AWACS, the missiles, drone support, jamming, etc) than airplane x vs y.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:07
by lookieloo
count_to_10 wrote:Redbird, the F-35B is C&C and CAS for amphibious assaults for the USMC, which can really be at all levels of conflict, but is also sea control for the British and Italians (and anyone else thinking of deploying STOVL carriers).
Chances are, the F-35B will be able to beat anything it flies against in air-to-air in the '20s, and probably into the '30s.
Yet by the 2040s, uprated versions of what the Chinese/Russians are testing now will have proliferated to the point where the F-35 doesn't look so hot. At which point, we get to start this whole thing over again with the next generation of crybabies arguing that updating the trusty ol' F-35 is good enough. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:11
by quicksilver
Wow. D'ja do that all in one breath...?

Difference maker? A jet that gives the US 20+ Tacair-capable ships with no further investment in ships than it has already made or is making.

(Warning: here comes the "size matters" mantra; yeah, stick with that one for a while and see what happens to GNFPP).

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:24
by XanderCrews
redbird87 wrote:f414...you can write all the long pick-apart posts you want and popcorn you can talk warmly about new CONOPs, but it doesn't change the fiscal realities we are dealing with here.


Sorry I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.

did you dig around to find cost numbers of B vs C or did you just try to think of scenarios where you could dismiss the B?

redbird87 wrote: We currently have 181 true 21st century air superiority aircraft. Think how many more could have be purchased with what we have spent to get the USMC their Corvette Stingray:-(


Or how many more we could afford without billion dollar CVNs?

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:27
by redbird87
lookie, I think the chances of this dog being revered in 2040 as the F-15 Eagle is now is about.....uhm.......zilch!

OK Quick, good point, but again, tell me a war winning or losing situation where it is really going to matter. Again, if the enemy figures out a way to kill our fleet carriers, do you seriously think the little amphib ships with their short legged, low payload birds are going to get in close and make a difference? I guess in a worldwide war with multiple theaters of different threat levels I can appreciate what you are saying. But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought. The thing that folks who tend to be passionately in favor the the plane usually overlook, is that budgets are not infinite piles of cash. When you sink dozens of billions of dollars into a non core defense purchase like the F-35B variant, other systems have to be sacrificed in the budget.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:33
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
redbird87 wrote:f414...you can write all the long pick-apart posts you want and popcorn you can talk warmly about new CONOPs, but it doesn't change the fiscal realities we are dealing with here.
Sorry I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.

did you dig around to find cost numbers of B vs C or did you just try to think of scenarios where you could dismiss the B?
The guy already thinks that the F-4 was as far as we needed to go. He will actually say that eventually if you keep arguing with him... along with claiming to be a field-grade officer (doesn't talk like any I've encountered). Be prepared for an adventure, though I would suggest not bothering.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 03:51
by redbird87
Very mature lookie. If you have actually read any of my posts in this string, you will see that is has been centered on the sensibility replacing the B variant with the longer range, greater payload C variant. I also suggested that the money spent on developing the B would have been better spent on F-22s, next gen bombers, and Virgina Class subs, These aren't exactly F-4 Phantom level platforms technologically.

It is amazing how anyone with opposing views on the cost effectiveness of this plane are attacked and basically called idiots.

And for the record, I am currently a Major in the USARNG with six years active duty time and two combat deployments.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 04:04
by redbird87
redbird87 wrote:Very mature lookie. If you have actually read any of my posts in this string, you will see that is has been centered on the sensibility replacing the B variant with the longer range, greater payload C variant. I also suggested that the money spent on developing the B would have been better spent on F-22s, next gen bombers, and Virgina Class subs, These aren't exactly F-4 Phantom level platforms technologically.

It is amazing how anyone with opposing views on the cost effectiveness of this plane are attacked and basically called idiots.

And for the record, I am currently a Major in the USARNG with six years active duty time and two combat deployments.


You too 414? Seriously guys, is group think all you know? Someone has opposing views about the cost effectiveness of this aircraft within our current budget and threat environment and you denigrate him by saying he would endorse going to war with F4s flying top cover? Lookie, 414, out of curiosity, have either of you ever had to call for CAS while on the ground in a war?

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 04:43
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' thanks for reminding me. Often I see comments about the new 'aviation LHAs' as 'failures'. What is that about? Only two will be built and then the next will revert to original design. 'So what' I say, no failure there - however I do not understand the comment. Thanks. If you are not able to explain that is OK. I feel your pain. :D


I look at it from the perspective of providing a more scalable, cost-effective response to crisis situations. The Marines are the original quick response force and they are configured accordingly. One LHA on each coast seems to be the plan. LHA-8 onwards will have a well deck but able to accommodate a reduced number of LCACs (2 instead of 3), presumably to support a more robust aviation capability.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 06:11
by XanderCrews
My apologies. You see what confused me was you asked a question and then essentially dismissed the answer. This gave me the impression that you weren't exactly asking the question to learn anything new or even alter your preconceived notions. With that in mind I decided not to parse up your posts (as you put it) into any further responses. But if you would like me to ignore the "group think" I would be more than happy to try and answer your questions to the best of my ability, based on my experience, providing you are willing to actually listen. Believe it or not, you are not the first person to suggest the C for the B.

you will see that is has been centered on the sensibility replacing the B variant with the longer range, greater payload C variant.


Is it sensible? (we will leave the UK,Italy, Japan, Singapore for later) Is it sensible from a cost standpoint? if so by how much? I can't measure value unless I know the cost first. So lets find out how much it costs (who knows it may not actually save that much in the end) and we can then start to determine if those wily jarheads have good reason to do what they do.

Curiously, I can't find any conflict that actually required an aircraft carrier post WWII. Makes me wonder why we really need them seeing as the USAF is always around anyway. just think of all the gizmos we could have if the Navy didn't need fleets of specialized aircraft, and all the men and material...

I also suggested that the money spent on developing the B would have been better spent on F-22s, next gen bombers, and Virgina Class subs,


Very well, how many could we have bought and sustained in lieu of the F-35B version?

Lookie, 414, out of curiosity, have either of you ever had to call for CAS while on the ground in a war?


I haven't actually, which is truly unfortunate because it apparently makes you an expert on procurement, purchase, and sustainment costs, even comparative costs, along with becoming an expert on how and why the Marine Corps operates the way it does, along with being able to predict what will be needed in future conflicts right down to the decade an aircraft will become obsolete. Which is impressive. When any of my friends called in CAS they didn't achieve the kind of military nirvana you did, so congrats.

I would love to hear how virgina subs, F-22s, and LRSBs do with CAS though, I assume that ties into this question and that's why you asked it, yes?

lastly Major, although I have not called in "CAS while on the ground in a war," I would remind you that a lot of people have been deploying these last 20 years or so, And although I can't vouch for Mr. Lookie, deploying to combat zones is not exactly rare especially the last 12 years, so to put it tactfully, don't assume you deploying to a combat zone is unique only to you.

Sir.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 07:10
by redbird87
You are correct 414, being deployed or having to work directly with FACs in combat does not make one any kind of expert in procurement or aviation technology. Mentioning that was simply a response to the ridiculous comment about the F-4 Phantom one of you made. The point was, having depended on CAS to survive, I want the best (for all of our troops).

However, being a very interested tax payer, studying this issue for years, and working in the air defense field for much of my career does give one some insight. You can save your sarcasm. The fact that development the B variant of the F-35 has been a been prohibitively expensive when compared to the actual need is pretty well universally known outside of the USMC and perhaps in the forum world. But if you don't respect and appreciate alternative views I will not discuss it with you further.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 07:13
by XanderCrews
redbird87 wrote:You are correct 414, being deployed or having to work directly with FACs in combat does not make one any kind of expert in procurement or aviation technology. Mentioning that was simply a response to the ridiculous comment about the F-4 Phantom one of you made. The point was, having depended on CAS to survive, I want the best (for all of our troops).

However, being a very interested tax payer, studying this issue for years, and working in the air defense field for much of my career does give one some insight. You can save your sarcasm. The fact that development the B variant of the F-35 has been a been prohibitively expensive when compared to the actual need is pretty well universally known outside of the USMC and perhaps in the forum world. But if you don't respect and appreciate alternative views I will not discuss it with you further.


Looks like we are both happy then.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:05
by count_to_10
redbird87 wrote:Yes Count, but again, are we ever going to conduct serious amphibious operations without ample fleet carrier support? Of course not, that's ludicrous. Marines could fly off of the flattops with Cs and carry more ordnance and have better endurance. So for the cost to our country for the F-35B, what have we sacrificed? And I could really care less about the Italians and Brits. I also disagree that it will be superior into the 30s, but as you probably know, that has more to do with total system employed (pilot training, tankers, AWACS, the missiles, drone support, jamming, etc) than airplane x vs y.

So, if the fleet carriers are supporting an amphibious assault, then they aren't doing something else. Having the 'B effectively doubles the number of carriers the US operates real fighters from -- and when not part of a ground assault, the amphibious flattops can double as sea control ships, potentially freeing up the fleet carriers for deep strikes.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:14
by count_to_10
redbird87 wrote:You are correct 414, being deployed or having to work directly with FACs in combat does not make one any kind of expert in procurement or aviation technology. Mentioning that was simply a response to the ridiculous comment about the F-4 Phantom one of you made. The point was, having depended on CAS to survive, I want the best (for all of our troops).

However, being a very interested tax payer, studying this issue for years, and working in the air defense field for much of my career does give one some insight. You can save your sarcasm. The fact that development the B variant of the F-35 has been a been prohibitively expensive when compared to the actual need is pretty well universally known outside of the USMC and perhaps in the forum world. But if you don't respect and appreciate alternative views I will not discuss it with you further.

The additional cost of developing the 'B over t he A is kind of minor compared to the cost of developing the avionics shared by all versions, and the capability it adds is not trivial.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:19
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:The additional cost of developing the 'B over t he A is kind of minor compared to the cost of developing the avionics shared by all versions, and the capability it adds is not trivial.


That is step one, exactly how much cost can be blamed on the Bee. Last I checked the C wasn't a whole lot cheaper either. The Gators aren't going anywhere, might as well make them more useful and put more tails on target.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:52
by cantaz
redbird87 wrote:The point was, having depended on CAS to survive, I want the best (for all of our troops).


The fact that development the B variant of the F-35 has been a been prohibitively expensive when compared to the actual need is pretty well universally known outside of the USMC and perhaps in the forum world.


Well, apparently USMC's CAS requirement doesn't count as much of an actual need?

And even if the Bs are eliminated in favour of more Cs, then what? The USN is maxed out on its budgetary ability to replace its CVNs. There is going to be a shortage of full-sized carriers, capping the number of planes the USN can deploy from sea. Any additional Cs gained from eliminating a B will just displace Super Hornets off the CVNs. The total number of fixed-wing carrier aircraft available from the USN will actually decrease since eliminating the Cs eliminates fixed-wing spots from the amphibs. There are overall less fixed-wing CAS available from the USN to support USMC or Army needs as a result. The Marine can try to pick up some slack with helicopter gunships, using up more money saved from eliminating the Bs, but also forcing the amphibs to operate closer to shore owing to the helicopter's limitations in range and speed, which also forces the USN to operate CVBGs closer to shore to cover the Marine ships.

And since at least one CVN is now absolutely required to be in range to provide top cover and CAS for both the USMC vessels and whatever mission they conduct inland, because the Marines can longer do it themselves at all, this places further demands on the fewer available carriers. That's the implication of ignoring the needs of the USMC for the F-35B.

The amount of money saved from eliminating the F-35B now won't solve the above. In fact, without being able to sink massive funding into more CVNs sooner, the F-35B is becoming a necessity to supplement USN carrier op. The USMC will see its amphibs become less amphibious in function and more multi-role light carrier (the sea control concept already mentioned).

Ultimately, the USMC wanted first and foremost to replace its CAS capability to support its own operations, but the aircraft will be operated in a way that reflects the expanded capability (over that of the Harrier). If the F-35B can do more than CAS for ongoing Marine land ops, then it will find itself doing those other things when there are no Marine land ops (which will be more often than not).

Final bit of trivia: during the 1980s the USN deployed a Marine amphib on a purely air ops role to the Med with Harriers embarked, due to a scheduling conflict with actual CVs and the obligation to keep at least one carrier in the Med. The precedence for USMC amphibs operating as light carrier is there, and the need and capability to do so are coming.

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2013, 21:39
by smsgtmac
I’ve been watching this thread with some amusement.
Quite frankly, outside of libeling senior military leadership/decision-makers as well as civilian contractors at the opening, the only thing Redbird’s demonstrated is a complete ignorance of Marine and MAGT mission and doctrine. Yet he feels comfortable second guessing USMC ‘valuation’ of the F-35B’s capabilities and associated costs.
Alright, he has an uninformed opinion and he’s not afraid to share it.
Who cares?

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2013, 22:41
by quicksilver
redbird87 wrote:lookie, I think the chances of this dog being revered in 2040 as the F-15 Eagle is now is about.....uhm.......zilch!

OK Quick, good point, but again, tell me a war winning or losing situation where it is really going to matter. Again, if the enemy figures out a way to kill our fleet carriers, do you seriously think the little amphib ships with their short legged, low payload birds are going to get in close and make a difference? I guess in a worldwide war with multiple theaters of different threat levels I can appreciate what you are saying. But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought. The thing that folks who tend to be passionately in favor the the plane usually overlook, is that budgets are not infinite piles of cash. When you sink dozens of billions of dollars into a non core defense purchase like the F-35B variant, other systems have to be sacrificed in the budget.


What's going to matter in the next war? My crystal ball got broken on the lake this past weekend, why don't you tell us. I do know that every contingency does not require a CVN (BH and Libya would be examples), but that the number of contingencies in the future will likely increase. Thus, numbers of aviation-capable ships and their versatility matters in GNFPP.

Short-legged? Their 'limbs' are as long as what the Navy is parking on CVNs these days.

"But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought." Oh really? According to whom? You?...Sweetman?...Boeing? Does the CMC have you on speed dial?

The Marine Corps not part of U.S. 'core defense"... Right...got it. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2013, 22:46
by quicksilver
redbird87 wrote:lookie, I think the chances of this dog being revered in 2040 as the F-15 Eagle is now is about.....uhm.......zilch!

OK Quick, good point, but again, tell me a war winning or losing situation where it is really going to matter. Again, if the enemy figures out a way to kill our fleet carriers, do you seriously think the little amphib ships with their short legged, low payload birds are going to get in close and make a difference? I guess in a worldwide war with multiple theaters of different threat levels I can appreciate what you are saying. But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought. The thing that folks who tend to be passionately in favor the the plane usually overlook, is that budgets are not infinite piles of cash. When you sink dozens of billions of dollars into a non core defense purchase like the F-35B variant, other systems have to be sacrificed in the budget.


What's going to matter in the next war? My crystal ball got broken on the lake this past weekend, why don't you tell us. I do know that every contingency does not require a CVN (BH and Libya would be examples), but that the number of contingencies in the future will likely increase. Thus, numbers of aviation-capable ships and their versatility matters in GNFPP.

Short-legged? Their 'limbs' are as long as what the Navy is parking on CVNs these days.

"But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought." Oh really? According to whom? You?...Sweetman?...Boeing? Does the CMC have you on speed dial?

The Marine Corps not part of U.S. 'core defense"... Right...got it. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 01:50
by redbird87
quicksilver wrote:
redbird87 wrote:lookie, I think the chances of this dog being revered in 2040 as the F-15 Eagle is now is about.....uhm.......zilch!

OK Quick, good point, but again, tell me a war winning or losing situation where it is really going to matter. Again, if the enemy figures out a way to kill our fleet carriers, do you seriously think the little amphib ships with their short legged, low payload birds are going to get in close and make a difference? I guess in a worldwide war with multiple theaters of different threat levels I can appreciate what you are saying. But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought. The thing that folks who tend to be passionately in favor the the plane usually overlook, is that budgets are not infinite piles of cash. When you sink dozens of billions of dollars into a non core defense purchase like the F-35B variant, other systems have to be sacrificed in the budget.


What's going to matter in the next war? My crystal ball got broken on the lake this past weekend, why don't you tell us. I do know that every contingency does not require a CVN (BH and Libya would be examples), but that the number of contingencies in the future will likely increase. Thus, numbers of aviation-capable ships and their versatility matters in GNFPP.

Short-legged? Their 'limbs' are as long as what the Navy is parking on CVNs these days.

"But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought." Oh really? According to whom? You?...Sweetman?...Boeing? Does the CMC have you on speed dial?

The Marine Corps not part of U.S. 'core defense"... Right...got it. :roll:


Quick,

First, what does helping one corrupt side or the other in Libya have to do with US National Defense? Same for Egypt and Syria? I don't know what BH is, sorry can't comment on that. Bosnia maybe? Likewise, I don't know what CMC is or really who Sweetman is other than he seems to be someone unpopular on this site.

Second, I NEVER said the USMC wasn't core to our defense. I do strongly feel that the F-35B capability we are paying so much for is not a "core" weapon system vital to the defense of this country and our critical interest. I would consider the F-16 and F-18 fleets, as the backbones of the USAF and Dept of the Navy tactical air, as core systems. Therefore I am fine with the F-35 A and C as "core" recapitalization expenditures, though I wish it had been approached in a more efficient manner. The F-35B is only a "core" weapon system for our national defense if you think the AV-8B is. Note, "core" in this case means something we can't do without. If you think, we are suddenly going to be defeated by enemy x or y without the Marine Harriers (or their replacements), then I can see where you would consider this a core system. That notion seems laughable.

The most sensible F-35B LRIP 6 cost I can find is $156 million. Some say it's over $200 million with all the R&D added up, you'll probably comeback with something wildly optimistic like $110. Just keeping it at $156 mil, 340 F-35Bs will cost an incredible $53 billion dollars. It's staggering what other military hardware could be purchased with this amount of money. All the while, we have virtually no 21st century air superiority platforms. The F-22s are too few, the 15s too old and unstealthy, and the 35s simply don't carry enough air dominance weapons to qualify. The country would be MUCH better off taking 2/3s of the $53 billion allocated for the F-35B buy (or whatever the true figure ends up being) and building more F-22s.

By the way, now that I think about it, when is the last time this country really TRULY needed an amphibious landing to ensure our national defense? Okinawa in 1945 maybe? Perhaps, but it probably could have been by-passed. Inchon in 1950? Nope, that was police action. D-day I guess is the correct answer. So just how is the F-35B "core" to our national defense and when will it have a mission that couldn't be accomplished by other assets (naval, USAF, and more affordable USMC birds)? Someone name me a mission that is critical to the survival of our country and way of life, where an amphib landing is a must. And, if there is one, why it couldn't be effectively supported by other Dept of the Navy and USAF strike assets? For $53 billion, you'd think there would be an obvious, in your face answer. There isn't though.....and the deficit marches on:-( I REALLY should have bought more LMT stock back when it was in the $80s!

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 03:09
by XanderCrews
The F-35B is only a "core" weapon system for our national defense if you think the AV-8B is. Note, "core" in this case means something we can't do without. If you think, we are suddenly going to be defeated by enemy x or y without the Marine Harriers (or their replacements), then I can see where you would consider this a core system. That notion seems laughable.


seeing as earlier you described a 21st century ARG as "jeep carriers" I'm not surprised in the slightest that you feel that way. Referring to an ARG as "jeep carriers" is like referring to Special Operations/special forces as "line infantry" If you think they are just a bunch of dumb grunts then the budget for JSOC is extremely excessive. however if you understand the nature of their mission and how they do it, the price is more than justified. The same goes for the ARG. And its good for a lot more than WWII style mass invasion.

The most sensible F-35B LRIP 6 cost I can find is $156 million. Some say it's over $200 million with all the R&D added up, you'll probably comeback with something wildly optimistic like $110. Just keeping it at $156 mil, 340 F-35Bs will cost an incredible $53 billion dollars. It's staggering what other military hardware could be purchased with this amount of money.


what is the cost of the same amount of F-35Cs for the Marine Corps again? I want to know how much we are "saving"

All the while, we have virtually no 21st century air superiority platforms. The F-22s are too few, the 15s too old and unstealthy, and the 35s simply don't carry enough air dominance weapons to qualify. The country would be MUCH better off taking 2/3s of the $53 billion allocated for the F-35B buy (or whatever the true figure ends up being) and building more F-22s.


Wow you really think the Marine Corps is going to save $35 billion by switching from the B to C? And how much will it cost to restart F-22 production? and what will the cost of the F-22 be?

You see, just proposing these things doesn't make them smart moves, or even plausible. Just like me saying "the US Army should just scrap all Abrams tanks and buy Super Apache gunships, because its cheaper"

By the way, now that I think about it, when is the last time this country really TRULY needed an amphibious landing to ensure our national defense? Okinawa in 1945 maybe? Perhaps, but it probably could have been by-passed. Inchon in 1950? Nope, that was police action.


Wow, really stretching there by using semantics, The US hasn't fought a "declared war" since WWII. It is funny though to hear you decry the Marine Corps need for specialized weapons because they are unneeded while being selective about the history you chose to include. BTW, Historically Harriers have killed more aircraft than F-22s.

As long as we are talking history though, no air force has ever won a war either. Thus by your definition, the USAF and whatever aircraft it insists on is useless (like an F-22), and the money from that could be better spent elsewhere. And seeing as Korea was a police action, and Vietnam was a conflict, and we never declared war on anyone, the USAF has never fought a war.

And as long as we are talking about usefulness, last I checked a Super Hornet was no F-22, its not even an F-35. So why on earth did we spend so much money to fill the decks of multi-billion dollar carriers, with substandard aircraft? couldn't that money be better spent on long range bombers and F-22s? Why aren't advocating F-35Cs to replace Super Hornets as well? Why aren't stripping the navy of its carriers and aircraft? When was the last time A Navy CVN didn't go to war without the USAF nearby? and the support of USAF Fighters? And USAF tankers? When was the last time a CVN was actually the linchpin of victory rather than yet another supporting element?

D-day I guess is the correct answer.


I didn't realize the B-29 raids and the Enola Gay flew all the way from France. Interesting. For the record, since history isn't your strong suit, and you seem allergic to details, the USMC has done more than just amphibious landings post WWII.

Also by even mentioning D-Day (Primarily an Army/Navy show BTW) you accidentally started arguing about the validity of amphibious warfare in general, and by extension the validity of the Marine Corps and the US Navy's Amphibious ships. please stick to the subject of B vs C cost.

So just how is the F-35B "core" to our national defense and when will it have a mission that couldn't be accomplished by other assets (naval, USAF, and more affordable USMC birds)? For $53 billion, you'd think there would be an obvious, in your face answer. There isn't though, and the deficit marches on:-( I REALLY should have bought more LMT stock back when it was in the $80s!


Red, what is the difference in cost between and F-35C and B? This is something you refuse to answer. You simply keep declaring the B vastly more expensive while avoiding actual comparative numbers like the plague.

So before you get on your soap box one more time, how about you do some research, and actually look for what we call "facts" to back up your theories? Maybe you could then post those "facts" as "evidence" that support your opinion. Once we establish comparative costs, we can talk about what kind of value we get or even what saved money (if any) can be saved.

Simple question Major: How much is an F-35B, How much is an F-35C and whats the difference?[/quote]

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 03:33
by redbird87
414 - The you're asserting I guess that cost of the C and B is about the same, although if you throw in all the R&D cost of the B's propulsion system into the mix, it is for sure higher. Who truly knows with Lockheed Martin math? But, the last I checked this much was for certain, the B doesn't carry near the fuel or the payload of the C. Which means, it is by default not as capable, even if the costs are the same. I assume you could argue it could be kept closer to the front and thus turned quicker. That is a stretch though.

I would not call the Super Hornet a "substandard" aircraft, and neither will any current naval aviator or commander that flys it. What would be going off the decks of the fleet carriers for the last 10 and next 10 years without it? Certainly not F-35s of any significant number.

And you are absolutely right, I was purposely stretching it by rhetorically mentioning when the last time an amphib landing was truly critical to our national defense. That was for effect, but when you are spending $53 billion for a weapon system, to me, it should be a "can't defend the country without it system". In this category, the F-35 A and C model come to mind, air superiority fighters (which the F-35 ain't and which we are sorely lacking), the VA class subs, Aegis boats, fleet carriers, the vehicles and rotary winged aircraft the Army and Marines need to move about the battlefield and the artillery and armor that supports them, critical space and C4ISR systems, tankers, bombers, and military airlift systems. To me, these are critical to the defense of this nation. The F-35B operating off of amphib ships, or jeep carriers, or whatever you wish to call them just flat aren't and the $53 billion could be more wisely spent on other systems. That's all I am saying.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 04:35
by XanderCrews
414 - The you're asserting I guess that cost of the C and B is about the same, although if you throw in all the R&D cost of the B's propulsion system into the mix, it is for sure higher. Who truly knows with Lockheed Martin math?


Indeed, especially as the engine/fan is made by RR and Pratt and Whit.

So you don't know. This entire argument of being able to afford X, Y, Z. isn't based on anything other than you saying it. And you have no earthly idea.

Finally, I would like to mention that the UK and Italy (remember those guys earlier you said didn't matter in this conversation?), who have also contributed billions in development for the F-35, and specifically the B model. So please layoff the argument that the US could buy all this snazzy stuff with European money invested in F-35B R&D.

But, the last I checked this much was for certain, the B doesn't carry near the fuel or the payload of the C. Which means, it is by default not as capable, even if the costs are the same.


Is it capable of STOVL? Can it operate from Amphibious ships? Then the C is not as capable. As long as we are picking one or two things to use and then dismissing everything else I think this is a fine argument.

B is faster overall and accelerates quicker too so the C is not as capable.

The Marines also passed on the Tomcat for the less fuel, less payload F/A-18. so it was a poor decision?

I assume you could argue it could be kept closer to the front and thus turned quicker. That is a stretch though.


How is that a stretch?

I would not call the Super Hornet a "substandard" aircraft, and neither will any current naval aviator or commander that flys it. What would be going off the decks of the fleet carriers for the last 10 and next 10 years without it? Certainly not F-35s of any significant number.


So now aircraft that are "less capable" are acceptable. OK. So can I know use the Redbird method of taking the billions spent on Super Hornets and calculating how many F-22s we could have bought? or even F-35Cs instead?

Now before you answer think carefully:

If you say that super hornets are less capable, but was what the navy needed, you run smack dab into your own argument that maybe "less capable" aircraft have other virtues that make them worthwhile, to the tune of hundreds of billions in fact.

If you say that Super Hornets are more capable than F-35s or F-22s, you harpoon yourself.

choose wisely

And you are absolutely right, I was purposely stretching it by rhetorically mentioning when the last time an amphib landing was truly critical to our national defense. That was for effect,


sure it was.

But when you are spending $53 billion for a weapon system, to me, it should be a "can't defend the country without it system". In this category, the F-35 A and C model come to mind, air superiority fighters (which we are sorely lacking)...
...The F-35B operating off of amphib ships, or jeep carriers, or whatever you wish to call them just flat aren't and the $53 billion could have been more wisely spent on other systems. That's all I am saying


we are spending $53 billion anyway B or C and as you say you can't actually prove how much was directly spent researching the F-35B. What we can prove though is how much Italy and the UK have invested in the JSF program, For all you know they completely paid for the B themselves, with a little left over.

So to me it just looks like you have a chip on your shoulder about the Marines, which is further evidenced by going beyond the latest aircraft choice and into amphibious warfare history.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 07:12
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: Interesting is that the whole F-35 fleet is now predicted to have 22 percent smaller lifetime costs while F-35B is predicted to have 16.6 percent smaller flight hour cost.
The 22% references the entire O&S cost structure, including upgrades, while the F-35B 16% was just CPFH.

Apples and Oranges


Thanks for the clarification, that makes perfect sense.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 07:21
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Briganti... How stupid is this guy anyway? :oops:

Why?
hornetfinn wrote:This seems to indicate that F-35A will have flight hour cost only very slightly (about 5-6 percent) above that of the F-16C when using the same metrics.

What metric would that be?


Because it's rather stupid to assume that certain capability should be used all the time in training to have real value. For example fighter aircraft fire air to air weapons probably less than 1 percent of the flights on average. Does this make air to air weapon capability not worth the cost of those weapons and weapon systems in those aircraft? Why on earth would F-35B need to use STOVL capability all the time for it to be worthwhile? It's much more costly to do so and is not required for a lot of training missions. In wartime that capability would probably be used much more often and would offer tactical and strategical possibilities not otherwise available.

That metric would be what was used by CAPE for calculating the flight hour and lifetime costs of F-35 and comparing them to F-16. They used as similar calculations as possible (including same things) for both fighters.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 22:17
by cola
hornetfinn wrote:Because it's rather stupid to assume that certain capability should be used all the time in training to have real value.

It's not stupid really, because "sweat saves blood" and if you have certain ability, which no one can use due the lack of training, you don't really have it at all. It's not uncommon for smaller AFs with meager flying hours per pilot to loose night flying, or A/G delivery capabilities. But all this aside, deBrigantti didn't assume anything and I'm not sure where did you get that idea from. He just quoted the MC source.
That metric would be what was used by CAPE for calculating the flight hour and lifetime costs of F-35 and comparing them to F-16. They used as similar calculations as possible (including same things) for both fighters.

About that...the "several percent difference over F16" is a claim made by Gen.Bogdan, with one important caveat - it is adjusted for projected cost/effectiveness for both planes.
That doesn't tell us anything really and the difference may vary enormously from theater to theater, i.e. type of threat.
So, JSF's current flying hour stands at $41k (actually $43.5k, but who's counting) leaning toward $37k and that's nominal value, both of which nowhere near an already out of context F16's cost ($25k) and that's about the only metric that really works.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 01:39
by delvo
Wow, while I was looking back at previous pages to try to find the beginning of the redbird87 argument and exactly what (s)he had said in the first place, I spotted my own previous post. I didn't even recognize the thread since then and realize that this was the one where I'd asked this!

delvo wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
lookieloo wrote:F-35 can operate conventionally when the feature is not needed, whereas the Harrier must use it every time.
F-35 can operate conventionally when the feature is not needed, whereas the Harrier must use it every time.
Why?


I got an answer from spazsinbad, but it was about why F-35B would launch & land conventionally when it can, and what I meant by the question was what prevented Harriers from doing so... even from being able to at all (since it was said that it "must" use STOVL "every time").

But I guess I'll take that to a new thread...

Anyway, although I can understand having doubts about the strategic/tactical importance of amphibious assault ships and the fighters they carry, it looks like legitimate debate over military doctrine is not where redbird87 started here. He started at just saying F-35B (but oddly not A or C) is a "dog" that would not be remembered positively in the future. The stuff about how to air-support Marine operations and what else could have been bought for the money is just what he retreated to to try to legitimize himself when his original position flopped. At forums that are all about debating serious topics seriously, this is called "shifting the goalposts".

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 02:14
by spazsinbad
I'll have to look again at what PNB means in the meantime this is a 'Conventional Landing' for the AV-8B according to NATOPS (official Pilot Manual in the USMC/USN). Note the use of the term "NOZZLE" and how they are used in such a CL. There has been a long discussion on this CL score when the 'most F-35B landing thread was started - amongst other threads - did you read those threads? I think it is clear from these excerpts from NATOPS that the AV-8B Harrier is designed to be flown using nozzles during landing/takeoff.
"...A standard Conventional Landing (CL) requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL. Landing distance available is a critical consideration when performing a CL. The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are marginal for a CL without PNB; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure...."

PNB = Power nozzle braking.

"7.3 TAKEOFF
Four methods of takeoff are possible. These are Vertical Takeoff (VTO), Rolling Vertical Takeoff (RVTO), Short Takeoff (STO) and Conventional Takeoff (CTO). The method of takeoff is dependent upon tactical and other conditions and must be predetermined in order to perform the necessary calculations and properly configure the aircraft....
&
...7.3.3 Conventional Takeoff
The CTO can be used when configuration or environmental conditions preclude use of any other takeoff type (i.e., crosswinds or asymmetric loadings). The CTO is restricted to gross weights that will not cause the wheel/tire limitation speed of 180 KGS to be exceeded on the takeoff roll."

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 02:59
by quicksilver
Conventional landings (i.e. no nozzle deflection) in Harrier are up around 155KIAS (GW dependent, of course). AV-8A was even higher -- 160+. The wing 'wants to fly' all the down to some very low airspeeds (<60kts). Only the MLG has brakes, and it only supports 55% of the weight of the jet. Brake system was never designed to be the primary means of slowing down above ~60kts (RVL speed). Speed brake is under the jet, so it cannot be fully deployed. Tandem landing gear arrangement means jet cannot be flared at touchdown without skagging the tail.

High approach speed, with engine waaay back in the rpm response range, reduced braking action after touchdown, and a good chance to overheat those brakes with excess use. Get the picture? STOVL Harrier largely 'free' -- just move the nozzles to the 60 degree position and it flies and lands more like conventional tacair, albeit at a flatter attitude.

F-35B completely different -- lands at similar speed (slightly less actually), is 'flarable' (my word), can aero-brake several thousand feet after touchdown, and has better braking system. STOVL mode 4 'costs' a clutch engagement.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 03:09
by delvo
Well, all jet engines have nozzles, and the nozzles are in use whenever the engines are running, so that doesn't explain anything. But if the idea here is the fact that it uses all of the same equipment in forward flight that it uses in STOVL (instead of having separate STOVL-dedicated equipment which is not used in forward flight), so it can't fly without using its STOVL parts, then I get it now. I had thought that the original comment was about the speeds & angles the plane would be moving at and the amount of runway it would use.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 03:45
by XanderCrews
It's not stupid really, because "sweat saves blood" and if you have certain ability, which no one can use due the lack of training, you don't really have it at all. It's not uncommon for smaller AFs with meager flying hours per pilot to loose night flying, or A/G delivery capabilities.


The difference is an aircraft with an advanced landing system like the F-35B saves having to use fuel and time to practice landing. the Marines are excited to spend more time working on combat tactics and training and less on the "challenging basics" of landing

So its actually an ability you can use with less training. That's one of the benefits in fact.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 04:06
by spazsinbad
'delvo' did you not look at the graphic from NATOPS?
1. Nozzles - AFT.
10. Nozzles - AS REQUIRED (up to full braking stop).
14. Nozzles - HOVER STOP.

+ PNB Power Nozzle Braking

Apparently as 'quicksilver' has explained it is possible to land at very high IAS with NOZZLES AFT but that is DAFT as explained otherwise.

Perhaps you need to look how the Harrier NOZZLES move. But I'm not going to provide that graphic. You can.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 07:03
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:About that...the "several percent difference over F16" is a claim made by Gen.Bogdan, with one important caveat - it is adjusted for projected cost/effectiveness for both planes.
That doesn't tell us anything really and the difference may vary enormously from theater to theater, i.e. type of threat.
So, JSF's current flying hour stands at $41k (actually $43.5k, but who's counting) leaning toward $37k and that's nominal value, both of which nowhere near an already out of context F16's cost ($25k) and that's about the only metric that really works.


Where do you get that JSF´s current flying hour stands at $43.5k? Is that the flying hour prediction for F-35B version only made earlier by CAPE with several rather unrealistic assumptions? If F-35B gets to $37k, then it will be expensive to fly but still offers capability not available in any other jet (true 5th generation STOVL aicraft). If you don't need STOVL capability, then fine, just buy A version. If you have large carrier to fly from, then you buy C version. Both are cheaper to fly and offer otherwise similar capabilities.

Yes, the cost calculations may vary enormously from theater to theater, but how is that any different with any other aircraft? Besides these calculations are overall lifetime costs and are calculated with certain prediction about how the jet will be used. Be it any jet, the peace time training will most likely be vast majority of flight hours and wartime flight hour costs are much more difficult to calculate as there are so many more variables and uncertainties.

How is F-16 cost calculation out of context?

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 10:01
by cola
hornetfinn wrote:Where do you get that JSF´s current flying hour stands at $43.5k?

US' JSF fleet is supposed to be 2443 strong, equaling ~19.5m flying hours.
Latest lifetime cost projection stands at $857b, so it's pretty straightforward from there.

Yes, the cost calculations may vary enormously from theater to theater, but how is that any different with any other aircraft?

It isn't different per se, but is pointless, because an entirely different branch deals in planing and tactical effectiveness, as opposed to logistics that actually maintains the aircraft, thus producing separate studies which are common way of expressing value of a particular piece of hardware.
A value mishmash like this JSF related one is like talking to a car dealer who's permanently throwing in stuff you didn't ask for, for just a 'little' extra cash. I don't care if that SUV can ford a 30cm deep creek or has an ultra new CD changer if I don't need that, or it costs $200k while I'm on a $100k budget.

How is F-16 cost calculation out of context?

It's not calculations that are out of context, but cost presentation, because today's costs for an old F16 fleet is by no means an average lifetime cost, as opposed to what the JSF's figures are supposed to be. Imagine what would an F16 cost if it's insisted that expenses should be calculated in its IOC year's, or even constant dollars.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 10:52
by hornetfinn
cola wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Where do you get that JSF´s current flying hour stands at $43.5k?

US' JSF fleet is supposed to be 2443 strong, equaling ~19.5m flying hours.
Latest lifetime cost projection stands at $857b, so it's pretty straightforward from there.

How is F-16 cost calculation out of context?

It's not calculations that are out of context, but cost presentation, because today's costs for an old F16 fleet is by no means an average lifetime cost, as opposed to what the JSF's figures are supposed to be. Imagine what would an F16 cost if it's insisted that expenses should be calculated in its IOC year's, or even constant dollars.


Ok, that is true but this is also very easily misleading as people are used to current monetary value and costs. This is one way of making people understand what the costs are is measuring the costs in some base year value. Everything cost much less 55 years ago, but still average standard of living is very much higher now than it was then. Simply because average income is so much higher now than it was then.

Same with those projected F-35 flight hour costs. They seem rather high, because they are calculated with assumed inflation of 2 percent. You can compare the costs of flying F-16C now if you normalize the costs to same base year or use exact same time period in cost calculations. Flying the same F-16C for those 55 years would likely have very much higher flight hour costs than what they have now. It's very erroneous to compare projected F-35 costs for 55 years and compare them to F-16C flight hour costs in 2011 for example. A lot of people seem to do just that and it's rather idiotic. Hell, it was much cheaper (in absolute dollar value) to buy and run a high end sports car in 1970's than it's to run Prius right now. Doesn't mean that those same sports cars can be ran cheaper today. One simply can't compare costs of two totally different times as it can be very misleading.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 13:57
by cola
hornetfinn wrote:This is one way of making people understand what the costs are is measuring the costs in some base year value.

Indeed, except that it hasn't been done in this case, which is the whole point.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 14:30
by lamoey
Extremely simplified the $43,500 is the average price for the 55 years, i.e. if one expects linear inflation then in 2040 the cost they expect to pay per flying hour (in 27 years) is $43,500.

Here is an example of what happened to the inflation since 1985, 27 years ago. If you take $10,000 in 1985 it became $21001 in 2012. It basically doubled, so using the same simplified method then todays F-35 flying cost should then be 50% lower at roughly $22,000

Source:http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 15:44
by SpudmanWP
cola wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Where do you get that JSF´s current flying hour stands at $43.5k?

US' JSF fleet is supposed to be 2443 strong, equaling ~19.5m flying hours.
Latest lifetime cost projection stands at $857b, so it's pretty straightforward from there.

Not only did you blow it on the whole "inflation vs baseline" issue, the $857 includes EVERYTHING associated with the F-35 after the initial buy.

They include basing, training, upgrades, etc. Many of these items are not included in traditional CPFH calculations.

Get back to us when you can come up with an apples-to-apples number with other planes (don't forget the baseline calculations).

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 02:25
by quicksilver
delvo wrote:Well, all jet engines have nozzles, and the nozzles are in use whenever the engines are running, so that doesn't explain anything. But if the idea here is the fact that it uses all of the same equipment in forward flight that it uses in STOVL (instead of having separate STOVL-dedicated equipment which is not used in forward flight), so it can't fly without using its STOVL parts, then I get it now. I had thought that the original comment was about the speeds & angles the plane would be moving at and the amount of runway it would use.


That's fair. I just didn't want to re-write the whole manual, so there's some economy in the descriptive that makes it hard for the lay reader to follow.

Landing conventionally -- Harrier is a bitch to slow down and keep on-speed, requires a low flat approach profile (meaning TD point CEP is very high), has to operate in a portion of the rpm band where the engine has poor response to throttle corrections, wants to keep flying once on the ground, and (absent PNB) has a real hard time getting stopped on 8K' of runway. If you land just a little long and a little fast it gets really, really sporty.

F-35B lands conventionally like an 'A' model.

You got the rest right.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 04:34
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' thanks. I did not know that (about CLing an AV-8B). Sounds fraught.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 05:41
by johnwill
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.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 14:09
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 20:06
by cantaz
Hm, why not use tool-free access panel for the fuel panel?

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 20:41
by spazsinbad
Combined screenshot from video.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 02:54
by quicksilver
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.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 06:09
by johnwill
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.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 06:16
by johnwill
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.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 02:05
by count_to_10
No spoilers on the wings?

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2013, 22:33
by quicksilver
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?

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 02:04
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 23:27
by popcorn
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.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 02:43
by lookieloo
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:

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 06:18
by spazsinbad
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.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 09:55
by popcorn
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..

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 00:29
by spazsinbad
How a little bit of co-operation amongst those with 'em may help bring down that pesky cost...

Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF 21 Sep 2013 Robert Wall
"...Norway and the U.K. have agreed to cooperate on their [F-35] maintenance and use. The Norwegian government said Sept. 17 it would seek to extend that cooperation to the Netherlands.

Those relationships should help lower usage costs across Europe, which would be further aided by U.S. F-35s jets deployed in the region, O’Bryan said. It would clear the way for a sharing of parts and experience...."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-2 ... k-jsf.html

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 00:33
by spazsinbad
AND...

An Advocate for the F-35 20 Sep 2013 Merri Shaffer
"Deborah James, Air Force Secretary nominee, said on Thursday the F-35 strike fighter has been an "enormously expensive program," but is integral to the United States maintaining air superiority. Addressing the Senate Armed Services Committee at her Sept. 19 confirmation hearing, James said she would continue to advocate for the F-35, if the Senate approves her nomination, and would press the point that "the threats out there are real and that we need this program to help us counter those threats." The F-35 program is "trending in the right direction," she said, citing the newest, lower lifecycle cost projections. James said the basing decisions for the initial combat-ready F-35 units should come in October or November. (James' responses to advance questions
http://www.airforcemag.com/testimony/Do ... 3james.pdf [363Kb])"

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -F-35.aspx

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 02:35
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:
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..


No, no, no. Not that simple. Not just man hours -- all personnel cost are included in the calculation over the life of a 50+ year program -- training expense, wages, you name it.

"Oh, no -- that can't be...". Oh yes it can -- and is.

"That's (pick your expletive) outrageous."

I agree.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 02:41
by spazsinbad
That calculation must require a supadupacomputa? :D

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2013, 14:20
by popcorn
It will be interesting to see whose lifecycle cost projections prevail, Bogdan's or Kendall's.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Do-Ya.aspx

F-35: A DAB Won't Do Ya

The Pentagon's defense acquisition board, which was to conduct a major review of the F-35 program in early October, now will not conduct the major milestone assessment until Oct. 22, at the earliest, due to the partial federal government shutdown, according to a program official. The DAB, chaired by Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall, is scheduled to look at new lifecycle cost projections for the multiservice fighter, review progress on a variety of technical issues, and decide whether to give the nod for higher rates of F-35 production starting in 2015. In June, after a summit of Office of the Secretary of Defense, service, international, and contractor leaders, Kendall said he expected to approve higher rate production at the October DAB review. The meeting is also expected to bless the new lifecycle cost estimates, which are 22 percent less than the previous ones.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2013, 21:56
by spazsinbad
Will be a good day when the disputed lifetime costs are updated for the better.... Long article re-iterating what is known recently on several threads including this one - COST:

Joint Strike Fighter Total Cost Still Up in the Air November 2013 By Dan Parsons
"...The Air Force, Lockheed and Pratt have created a “cost war room” staffed by experts in manufacturing, supply chain management and development and procurement whose task it is to systematically parse the jet’s entire life cycle, looking for efficiencies.

“I’m cautiously optimistic that over the next year or two we will see some good results out of that,” Bogdan said.

The cost war room is at Lockheed’s private development center near Crystal City, Va., where half a floor was given over to the full-time effort.

“I have told Lockheed, and I have told Pratt … the expectation is that lot over lot, the airplane’s price and the engine price will and must keep coming down,” Bogdan said. “There is no scenario I see where that can’t happen. Not on my watch. I won’t let that happen. The price needs to keep coming down, no matter what.”

Other systems designed specifically to make operations and maintenance of the F-35 efficient and cost effective, like the automatic logistics information system (ALIS), are “just flat-out late,” Bogdan said.

ALIS is a globally distributed data collection and dissemination program that allows operators to plan ahead, maintain and sustain the F-35 throughout an individual plane’s life cycle. It integrates operations, maintenance, prognostics, supply chain, customer support and technical data and makes it available at a moment’s notice for pilots and maintenance staff worldwide.

“ALIS is going to be a wonderful system some day, but we started way too late in applying the systems engineering discipline that is needed,” Bogdan said. “We’re doing it now, but we are in catch-up mode, and we’ll be in catch-up mode for a while.”

Costs per aircraft have been coming down with each lot purchased, both Bogdan and Martin said. From low-rate initial production lots one to five, the cost has decreased 55 percent across all three variants, Martin said. That accounts for a $500 million reduction from lots one to five. The Air Force’s conventional takeoff and landing version now sits at $150 million per copy, she said...."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... heAir.aspx

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2013, 20:37
by spazsinbad
Pentagon F-35 review next week to examine operating costs Andrea Shalal-Esa 16 Oct 2013
"(Reuters) - Top Pentagon officials will examine the cost of building and operating the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet at a major review of the $392 billion program next week that will also provide updates on lingering technical issues.

Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said a high-level Defense Acquisition Board meeting was expected to proceed on Monday despite the partial government shutdown. The meeting has already been postponed several times.

She said officials would get an update on how the program was meeting its cost and schedule targets, as well as progress on technical challenges including the millions of line of complex software code being written for the new fighter planes.

One key topic at the meeting will be the long-term cost of operating and "sustaining" the new fighter plane, an issue of great concern for the U.S. military and the eight partner countries that are funding its development: Britain, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, the Netherlands and Italy.

The Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)office is expected to present an updated projection of the cost of operating and maintaining the U.S. military's future fleet of 2,443 F-35s over 55 years.

CAPE has maintained its forecast for that cost at around $1.1 trillion for some time, but Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has said he expects the estimate to come down.

The F-35 program office has already lowered its estimate by 20 percent to $857 billion.

"Sustainment cost will be a large topic of discussion," said Hawn, noting that it was critical to lower the longer-term costs of operating the new warplanes so it was affordable for the U.S. military and international buyers.

She said the program would also be hosting the first of a regular set of twice-yearly summits on operating and maintenance costs in November, an initiative that grew out of a September meeting of the F-35's Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB).

Details were still being worked out, but the meeting is aimed at generating ideas for driving down the cost of operating and maintaining a global fleet of thousands of F-35s, Hawn said.

For instance, in September, Britain and Norway announced they would work together more closely to lower costs by pooling resources for technical maintenance once the new fighter jets start arriving in Europe in the second half of the decade.

The meeting is expected to include representatives from Lockheed and other key suppliers on the program, Northrop Grumman Corp, BAE Systems Plc and Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, as well the U.S. military and the eight partner countries.

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the Pentagon's F-35 program chief, has said he hopes to inject more competition into the overall effort of operating and maintaining the planes once the program completes development around 2018.

Lockheed oversees sustainment of the F-35 under the current development contract, but the Pentagon is exploring other options, including dealing directly with component suppliers that work on maintenance, instead of having Lockheed coordinate that work, according to one source familiar with the program.

Monday's Pentagon meeting is also expected to touch on last week's news that extended durability testing of the F-35 B-model had resulted in minor cracks in the bulkhead of the plane, which is being built for the Marine Corps.

Hawn said investigators were still trying to determine the root cause of the cracks."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/ ... sinessNews

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2013, 04:42
by popcorn
Apparently CAPE figures were not available for release during the recent DAB meeting so will just have to wait to se how close they track to,Gen.,Bogdan's estimate.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 0?irpc=932
...
Kendall also asked the head of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation office to finalize a new estimate for the cost to operate and maintain the fleet of F-35 jets over the next 55 years as part of the fiscal 2015 budget submission.

The CAPE's previous estimate was $1.1 trillion, but the Pentagon's F-35 program office puts the cost at $857 billion...

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2013, 17:44
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Apparently CAPE figures were not available for release during the recent DAB meeting so will just have to wait to se how close they track to,Gen.,Bogdan's estimate.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 0?irpc=932
...
Kendall also asked the head of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation office to finalize a new estimate for the cost to operate and maintain the fleet of F-35 jets over the next 55 years as part of the fiscal 2015 budget submission.

The CAPE's previous estimate was $1.1 trillion, but the Pentagon's F-35 program office puts the cost at $857 billion...


It will be fun to see how much the price drops and how many cries of foul play we will hear from the usual suspects

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 03:37
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:Apparently CAPE figures were not available for release during the recent DAB meeting so will just have to wait to se how close they track to,Gen.,Bogdan's estimate.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 0?irpc=932
...
Kendall also asked the head of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation office to finalize a new estimate for the cost to operate and maintain the fleet of F-35 jets over the next 55 years as part of the fiscal 2015 budget submission.

The CAPE's previous estimate was $1.1 trillion, but the Pentagon's F-35 program office puts the cost at $857 billion...


It will be fun to see how much the price drops and how many cries of foul play we will hear from the usual suspects


I'd settle for something in between Bogdan's and Kendall's estimates... lower would be nicer though.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 23:06
by maus92
Winslow Wheeler added up projected F-35 costs based on the 2014 NDAA just signed into law. LM has a lot of work to do to get prices down to what they are claiming for 2019.

The Latest Word on F-35 Unit Cost
January 3, 2014
Winslow Wheeler / POGO Blog

"There have been some wild assertions about F-35 unit cost recently. See the Lockheed claims as reported in Breaking Defense, Defense News and others that we should expect F-35A costs to be $85 million in 2019. None of these articles acknowledged that there are ways to measure F-35 unit cost other than by mouthing Lockheed and/or Joint Program Office prognostications for the future."

"The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the "long lead" money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for "modification of aircraft" for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A...."

"For the Marines B, or STOVL, model, the authorized 2014 buy is six (6) aircraft for $1.267 billion in 2014 procurement, $106 million in 2013 long lead money, and $147 million in 2014 aircraft procurement modifications. That calculates to $252.3 million for each one.

For the Navy's C, carrier-capable (but not yet), model, we get four (4) aircraft for $1.135 billion, plus $32 million in long lead, plus $31 million in modifications. That means $299.5 million for each one."

The entire post can be found here: http://www.pogo.org/blog/2014/01/the-la ... -cost.html

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 00:24
by rotosequence
The Pentagon apparently opted to violate federal law to keep the F-35 on track, as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/ ... VA20140103

(Reuters) - The Pentagon repeatedly waived laws banning Chinese-built components on U.S. weapons in order to keep the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013, even as U.S. officials were voicing concern about China's espionage and military buildup.

According to Pentagon documents reviewed by Reuters, chief U.S. arms buyer Frank Kendall allowed two F-35 suppliers, Northrop Grumman Corp and Honeywell International Inc, to use Chinese magnets for the new warplane's radar system, landing gears and other hardware. Without the waivers, both companies could have faced sanctions for violating federal law and the F-35 program could have faced further delays.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 00:55
by SpudmanWP
The did not violate the law, they followed it.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 00:57
by rotosequence
SpudmanWP wrote:The did not violate the law, they followed it.


Whoops, you're right. :doh:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 01:00
by count_to_10
Kind of hard to sabotage magnets without anyone noticing. Also kind of hard to get neodymium anywhere else.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 01:12
by rotosequence
count_to_10 wrote: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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2014, 14:49
by cantaz
rotosequence wrote: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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 03:36
by popcorn
At least get it below the,$Trillion mark :D

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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 06:46
by gtx
That was always a ridiculous number. It would be interesting to see what other platforms total to if measured the same way.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 16:30
by sferrin
gtx wrote: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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 18:38
by luke_sandoz
gtx wrote: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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 19:15
by 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

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 19:58
by sferrin
luke_sandoz wrote:
gtx wrote: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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 08:01
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
gtx wrote: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! :doh:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 13:14
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote: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! :doh:



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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 15:12
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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! :doh:



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. :doh:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 06:35
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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! :doh:



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.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 06:38
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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! :doh:



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. :doh:



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....... :doh:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2014, 23:26
by 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...

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2014, 00:50
by 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!

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2014, 01:35
by spazsinbad
UhOh. Watch for the BIG BS story - real soon now - ya hear. :doh: Aviation Forensick Accounting at not the best. :devil:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2014, 01:46
by smsgtmac
zerion wrote:http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/gao-draft-slams-f-35-on-unaffordable-costs-8-8b-over-legacy-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...


Thanks for the link but you buried the lede:

The GAO report points out throughout the draft report that CAPE estimates are substantially higher than those of the Joint Program Office, which manages the program, for almost everything to do with sustainment. The official CAPE estimate is $23 billion higher than the JPO’s. But the report says that the CAPE estimate for parts costs would be $120 billion higher than the JPO’s if “they used actual replacement rates being observed at F-35 sites.”


...And earlier in the piece, we see the GAO is still trotting out immature reliability numbers that are statistically irrelevant:
Part of the reasons behind those higher costs can be found in these numbers cited by GAO. First, mean flight hours between critical failures: “As of March 2014, this metric was averaging well below its requirements at maturity, meeting an average of 42 percent of those requirements across all three variants,” the GAO says. And mean time to repair the aircraft “is worsening,” though the report does not offer a specific figure.


Predicting future costs based upon an assumption of no reliability growth and pretending the reliability numbers are statistically significant? Typical GAO/CAPE bean-counter garbage! -Produced on six month old data to boot. As to averaging a value across all three variants with different numbers fielded and at different maturity levels/flying hour histories? Pure GAO-IGO.
I've suspected MTTR was higher than expected for a long time and mostly for one specific reason: Dollars to Donuts the MTTR standard was based upon legacy non-LO aircraft, and the delta is driven mostly by real-world cure times (we never learn--i.e. not the first LO program to do so). No matter what you do, forced or ambient cure: you gotta' let the paint dry.

Translation: CAPE/GAO are saying: Who are you going to believe? The program or our lying actual, immature data?
They might as well be climate modelers.

The 'tell' is the lack of complaint by the operators. If the F-35 was as bad as the H8ters paint it, the maintainers would be complaiing about the break rates and the meat-servos would be complaining about aircraft availability rates. All I've heard are crickets about breakage and availability.

Prediction: I predict we will find this 'draft' leak was specifically designed to poison the well as to any positive developments in the program. Of course, it's only really a prediction that history is repeating itself. Expect POGO et al to slobber all over this --it was probably leaked for their show anyway.

[edited one time for content and one time for this note, cause I REALLY screwed up the copy/paste extracts from my word doc.]

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2014, 22:07
by spazsinbad
F-35 Sustainment: Need for Affordable Strategy, Greater Attention to Risks, and Improved Cost Estimates
GAO-14-778: Published: Sep 23, 2014. Publicly Released: Sep 23, 2014

HighLights: What GAO Found
"The Department of Defense (DOD) currently has or is developing several plans and analyses that will make up its overall F-35 sustainment strategy, which is expected to be complete in fiscal year 2019. The annual F-35 operating and support (O&S) costs are estimated to be considerably higher than the combined annual costs of several legacy aircraft (see fig.). DOD has begun some cost-savings efforts and established sustainment affordability targets for the F-35 program, but DOD did not use the military services' budgets to set these targets. Therefore, these targets may not be representative of what the services can afford and do not provide a clear benchmark for DOD's cost-savings efforts. In addition, DOD has not fully addressed several issues that have an effect on affordability and operational readiness, including aircraft reliability and technical-data rights, which could affect the development of the sustainment strategy.

It is unclear whether DOD's O&S cost estimates for the F-35 program reflect the most likely costs that the F-35 program will incur. DOD has two primary F-35 O&S estimates that each total around $1 trillion over a 56-year life cycle. These cost estimates are comprehensive in that they include all DOD-required program elements and are organized according to a standard O&S cost-estimating structure; however, weaknesses exist with respect to a few of the assumptions, and the estimates did not include all analyses necessary to make them fully reliable. For example, the estimates did not use reasonable fuel burn rate assumptions that reflect the likely future F-35 fuel usage. Further, one of the estimates did not use reasonable assumptions about part replacement rates and depot maintenance. Finally, while DOD took some steps to mitigate the uncertainties inherent in cost estimates, DOD officials did not conduct key analyses to determine the level of risk associated with the estimates.

Why GAO Did This Study
The F-35 Lightning II is intended to replace a variety of existing aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, while providing the most supportable, technologically advanced, lethal, and survivable aircraft to date. The F-35 is DOD's most expensive weapon system, with estimated sustainment costs of about $1 trillion. With the military services planning for the ability to deploy and maintain the F-35 within 4 years, DOD is working to develop a sustainment strategy that will be both affordable and executable for the program's life cycle.

GAO was mandated to review DOD's F-35 sustainment planning efforts. This report addresses the extent to which DOD has (1) developed an F-35 sustainment strategy and addressed potential risks related to affordability and operational readiness and (2) developed a reliable O&S cost estimate for the program's life cycle. GAO analyzed documented plans and cost estimates and interviewed DOD and contractor officials.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOD develop better informed affordability constraints; address three risks that could affect sustainment, affordability, and operational readiness; and take steps to improve the reliability of its cost estimates. DOD concurred with all but one recommendation and partially concurred with the recommendation to conduct uncertainty analysis on one of its cost estimates, stating it already conducts a form of uncertainty analysis. GAO continues to believe that the recommended analysis would provide a more comprehensive sense of the uncertainty in the estimates."

HIGHlights ONLY PDF: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666041.pdf (0.5Mb)

PDF of full report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666042.pdf (5.6Mb)

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-778

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2014, 22:51
by smsgtmac
My goodness. No wonder someone orchestrated the leak of the draft. To anyone who's paid attention, all they need to see this is Garbage-with-a-capital-GAO is the graphic and notes for the graphic on the first page of the summary after the title page.
1st: Notice any aircraft missing from the aircraft being replaced?
2nd: Notice the number sources for the F-35 and others? The others (I assume) apply inflation to the O&S costs but the F-35 source numbers are known to include Cost Growth Above Inflation AND O&S for all the systems it carries that the others have to put on pylons AND the F-35s costs are known to include ALIS estimates.
Can hardly wait to get off work and get past page 2 [past page 2 in critique hat is: I've been past page 2 on this one for a little while. Just need to compare my notes from an earlier 'review' with the released version for a bit :whistle: .]

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2014, 22:59
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad....

GAO was mandated to review DOD's F-35 sustainment planning efforts...

GAO recommends that DOD develop better informed affordability constraints..

. DOD concurred with all ..and partially concurred with the recommendation..

GAO continues to believe that the recommended analysis would provide a more comprehensive sense of the uncertainty in the estimates.".....

It never hurts to have someone, else, to look over your "most favored" program.

....glad to hear they can provide a more comprehensive sense of uncertainty;

here I was thinging that it was universally accepted as uncertain by 'most everyone! :)

...sorry Spaz!, couldn't resist.....good article!

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 00:12
by eskodas
So there's

409 USN F/A-18A-Ds

238 USMC F/A-18A-Ds plus

USAF 114 F-15C/Ds and 583 F-16C/Ds plus

ANG 140 F-15C/Ds and 368 F-16C/Ds plus

AFRC 53 F-16C/Ds

99 Harrier's under USMC

total : 2004 aircraft to the F-35 at 2,457 which is 22.6% greater

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 03:05
by smsgtmac
neptune wrote:[quote="spazsinbad....

GAO was mandated to review DOD's F-35 sustainment planning efforts...

GAO recommends that DOD develop better informed affordability constraints..

. DOD concurred with all ..and partially concurred with the recommendation..

GAO continues to believe that the recommended analysis would provide a more comprehensive sense of the uncertainty in the estimates.".....

It never hurts to have someone, else, to look over your "most favored" program.

....glad to hear they can provide a more comprehensive sense of uncertainty;

here I was thinging that it was universally accepted as uncertain by 'most everyone! :)

...sorry Spaz!, couldn't resist.....good article!


Shack! GAO reports and the system in a nutshell.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 03:36
by popcorn
eskodas wrote:So there's

409 USN F/A-18A-Ds

238 USMC F/A-18A-Ds plus

USAF 114 F-15C/Ds and 583 F-16C/Ds plus

ANG 140 F-15C/Ds and 368 F-16C/Ds plus

AFRC 53 F-16C/Ds

total : 1905 aircraft to the F-35 at 2,457 which is 28.9% greater


Only 53 F-16s in the whole AF? What about the Harriers and A-10s?

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 04:17
by eskodas
Ops, Harriers to brings it up 99 to 2004 aircraft. The F-16's followed the F-15's. AFRC is the Reserve Command. A-10s were not mentioned in the GAO as being in the 11.1 billion.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 05:35
by Corsair1963
eskodas wrote:So there's

409 USN F/A-18A-Ds

238 USMC F/A-18A-Ds plus

USAF 114 F-15C/Ds and 583 F-16C/Ds plus

ANG 140 F-15C/Ds and 368 F-16C/Ds plus

AFRC 53 F-16C/Ds

99 Harrier's under USMC

total : 2004 aircraft to the F-35 at 2,457 which is 22.6% greater



What about the over 500 USN Super Hornets??? (plus A-10's) :?

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 06:08
by geforcerfx
F-35's Number seems way to high thought it was like 12 billion? Also why no listing the F-15e and A-10? that's another 500 unique (and expensive) airframes the F-35 will replace.

Corsair1963 wrote:
eskodas wrote:So there's

409 USN F/A-18A-Ds

238 USMC F/A-18A-Ds plus

USAF 114 F-15C/Ds and 583 F-16C/Ds plus

ANG 140 F-15C/Ds and 368 F-16C/Ds plus

AFRC 53 F-16C/Ds

99 Harrier's under USMC

total : 2004 aircraft to the F-35 at 2,457 which is 22.6% greater



What about the over 500 USN Super Hornets??? (plus A-10's) :?

The F-35 isn't replacing the Super hornet

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2014, 11:15
by cantaz
As far as I know, the F-35 is not formally replacing the F-15C either. Why did the GAO suggest otherwise?

If the GAO is putting the F-15C in, a related case might be made for inclusion of A-10 and SH in the cost analysis in the 2030+ timeframe.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2014, 01:40
by spazsinbad
As always 'best to read entire post at source' but youse knew that...
GAO questions F-35 sustainment estimates
24 Sep 2014 Aaron Mehta

"...In a statement released by his office, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 JPO, thanked the GAO for its input but indicated the review missed several key points of information.

“While the current data used to compile the report is in large part accurate, many of the assumptions made by GAO in extrapolating costs over the life of the F-35 program did not reflect ongoing process improvements, or failed to account for learning and feedback that will improve efficiency of F-35 sustainment operations in the coming years,” Bogdan wrote.

Since June, Bogdan has launched two major initiatives that should drive down cost for sustainment and maintenance: putting sustainment up for competition on a global scale and the new “Blueprint for Affordability” program launched by the F-35’s corporate partners, which aims to invest $170 million in R&D to find cost reductions....

...Supporters of the F-35 have criticized both GAO and CAPE figures in recent years, noting that the agencies often used data that is a year or more behind current numbers by the time the report comes out.

For his part, Bogdan has maintained a clear line between the “old” program, with all its problems, and the “new” program that began following a 2012 rebaselining for milestones and cost estimates, in recent appearances telling critics to “get over it” and acknowledge that the JSF is largely on track since 2012.

The audit, which occurred from August 2014 to September 2014, was conducted under orders from the House Armed Services Committee, which included language stipulating a report on F-35 sustainment cost as part of the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. It is unlikely that the findings will change minds on the Hill about the future of the program, however.

It is also not slowing down international partners...." [HARSH]

Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... /309240078

SASC Chairman: F-35 Future ‘Fairly Strong’
24 Sep 2014 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) said the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter program is “fairly strong” and likely to reach the “finish line.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is retiring from the Senate in the next few months, was answering reporter’s questions Sept. 24 at the Defense Writer Group breakfast in Washington when he responded to a question about the Senate’s confidence in the future of the F-35.

“I’d say fairly strong, provided there is no major disruption,” Levin said. “The further along it gets, although it’s limping at times, the stronger it gets, the more likely it is it will get to the finish line.”..."

Source: http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories ... levin.html

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2014, 06:18
by Corsair1963
geforcerfx wrote:

The F-35 isn't replacing the Super hornet



Odds are at least some Super Hornets will be replaced by F-35's. In my opinion I believe it to be highly likely. 8)

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2014, 07:30
by popcorn
Lest we forget, add the USMC Prowlers to the list.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 05:43
by USMilFan
Page 33 of the PDF version of the GAO report spazsinbad linked to states,

“One key decision is for DOD to determine what it can realistically afford with respect to the F-35 program, but until it identifies affordability constraints tied to the military services’ budgets, it will continue to develop and field the most costly weapon system program in history without knowing whether the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps can pay for it.”


We may infer from the above statement that GAO considers a program affordable only if its costs fall within prescribed budget constraints. But surely, this definition falls far short of our most commonly understood meaning of the term. Instead, perhaps we should consider a program affordable if it lacks a more economical alternative.

The GAO does a disservice to the public when it misuses terms like “affordable.” I must assume that distortions of this kind are deliberate, given the media’s inevitable malpractice. Shame on GAO for feeding the media’s F-35 frenzy.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 18:41
by XanderCrews
USMilFan wrote:Page 33 of the PDF version of the GAO report spazsinbad linked to states,

“One key decision is for DOD to determine what it can realistically afford with respect to the F-35 program, but until it identifies affordability constraints tied to the military services’ budgets, it will continue to develop and field the most costly weapon system program in history without knowing whether the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps can pay for it.”


We may infer from the above statement that GAO considers a program affordable only if its costs fall within prescribed budget constraints. But surely, this definition falls far short of our most commonly understood meaning of the term. Instead, perhaps we should consider a program affordable if it lacks a more economical alternative.

The GAO does a disservice to the public when it misuses terms like “affordable.” I must assume that distortions of this kind are deliberate, given the media’s inevitable malpractice. Shame on GAO for feeding the media’s F-35 frenzy.



Well put 8)

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 00:27
by USMilFan
Many thanks for the kind compliment, XanderCrews. It’s good to hear from you, again. But perhaps I was too cryptic in my explanation. Please allow me to expound further.

The application of words like “affordable” and “affordability” imply a notion of optimality within a comparative context. Yet, this GAO report mentions potentially better alternatives to the F-35 exactly nowhere.

To say that the F-35 might become unaffordable implies that the decision to continue the program may not be the best choice for our country, our coalition partners, and other F-35 customer nations. This is simply false and misleading. Instead, the GAO report merely shows that the O & S portion of the program may eventually exceed budget estimates in the distant future. That is a far cry from calling its affordability into question.

Hey, GAO, if F-35 O & S costs might exceed budget plans for 2040, then just say it in plain words. Spare us the alarmist melodrama and phony handwringing!

I mourn that we have come to a place where GAO, alleged watchdog of the US Govt., needs adult supervision to ensure that it presents the facts fairly, objectively, and accurately to the public. So, who’s watching the watchdog? Of course, the media should be playing this role as much as possible. Most unfortunately, however, the media watchdogs have become government lapdogs instead. How pathetic both of these institutions have become.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 01:44
by Corsair1963
USMilFan wrote:Many thanks for the kind compliment, XanderCrews. It’s good to hear from you, again. But perhaps I was too cryptic in my explanation. Please allow me to expound further.

The application of words like “affordable” and “affordability” imply a notion of optimality within a comparative context. Yet, this GAO report mentions potentially better alternatives to the F-35 exactly nowhere.

To say that the F-35 might become unaffordable implies that the decision to continue the program may not be the best choice for our country, our coalition partners, and other F-35 customer nations. This is simply false and misleading. Instead, the GAO report merely shows that the O & S portion of the program may eventually exceed budget estimates in the distant future. That is a far cry from calling its affordability into question.

Hey, GAO, if F-35 O & S costs might exceed budget plans for 2040, then just say it in plain words. Spare us the alarmist melodrama and phony handwringing!

I mourn that we have come to a place where GAO, alleged watchdog of the US Govt., needs adult supervision to ensure that it presents the facts fairly, objectively, and accurately to the public. So, who’s watching the watchdog? Of course, the media should be playing this role as much as possible. Most unfortunately, however, the media watchdogs have become government lapdogs instead. How pathetic both of these institutions have become.


The GAO is really just pushing paper and is of little value. As a matter of fact I think being critical of every defense program is just a reason to justify its existence....... :shock:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2014, 05:03
by smsgtmac
In case anyone needs a one stop shop for pretty much every major 'wrong' in that September GAO report. I've done a 'once through' on it.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2014, 15:32
by popcorn
Email smsgtmac‘s analysis to everyone in Congress.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2014, 17:16
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:Email smsgtmac‘s analysis to everyone in Congress.


They probably wouldn't understand it. Their aids would have to "interpret" it for them. :bang:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 00:02
by maus92
Put it on Lockheed Martin stationary, and they'll understand it.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 13:26
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:Put it on Lockheed Martin stationary, and they'll understand it.


Me-YOWW
What are you trying to say Mausy ? Don't be shy.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 13:53
by spazsinbad
:devil: IN some countries writing on the back of the largest legal bank notes in circulation [or US dorrar] (not in consecutive serial numbers) one letter at a time - is helpful for better understanding. :devil: THEN... reassemble the entire puzzle in an untraceable offshore account to know the meaning of LIF (42). :doh:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 15:58
by newmanfrigan
smsgtmac wrote:
maus92 wrote:Put it on Lockheed Martin stationary, and they'll understand it.


Me-YOWW
What are you trying to say Mausy ? Don't be shy.


He always uses Boeing stationary, so he's completely innocent of "corruption". :bang:

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 20:34
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Put it on Lockheed Martin stationary, and they'll understand it.


yum, delicious. It has a kind of nutty, bitter flavor. Are we pretending that Boeing doesn't have its little methods?

Welcome to the JSF saga, where the points don't matter and only LM does anything wrong.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 21:54
by cantaz
Remind us again, Maus, what exactly is your professional background? Because if you're going accuse an actual subject matter expert like Mac of being just another LM shill, you should at least have some credibility yourself. Since you don't seem to have achieved any credibility through any sort of analytic prowess we've seen here, I assume you've got some serious professional points you've held back.

In the interest of fair disclosure, I'm just a lowly peon in one of Her Majesty's air forces.

I feel another warning come on. Might be out for a couple weeks.

Re: F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2014, 23:15
by spazsinbad
'maus92' is welcome on the UK CRAB forum pPrune - so there is that.... [NOT lurnin much here apparently and yet he did edit the original message to add the bits lurned here - good oh] BUT he has some lawyer in 'im - so there is that also. :devil:
"'maus92'
...Of course the lawyer in me would also be asking for damages, specifically the cost of replacing a $120M airframe."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation ... ost8699415