Page 12 of 12

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