F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

USMilFan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2006, 23:21

Unread post08 Oct 2014, 05:43

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5916
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Oct 2014, 18:41

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)
Choose Crews
Offline

USMilFan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2006, 23:21

Unread post09 Oct 2014, 00:27

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5562
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Oct 2014, 01:44

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:
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post12 Oct 2014, 05:03

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.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post12 Oct 2014, 15:32

Email smsgtmac‘s analysis to everyone in Congress.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5333
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Oct 2014, 17:16

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:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 00:02

Put it on Lockheed Martin stationary, and they'll understand it.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 13:26

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.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 13:53

: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:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

newmanfrigan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 05:14
  • Location: Kansas City, MO

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 15:58

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:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5916
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 20:34

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.
Choose Crews
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 21:54

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Oct 2014, 23:15

'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
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests