F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

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

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 13:36

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.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2788
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 13:41

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 13:47

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2788
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 13:58

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:
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7698
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 15:14

Every little saving helps.. a million here, a million there...

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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7698
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 15:24

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8387
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 15:49

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8387
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 15:50

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
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7698
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 16:00

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.
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 16:16

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?
Cheers, Cola
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 17:09

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

castlebravo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 17:29

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 18:11

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

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 18:57

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.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 20:19

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests