F-35 Acquisition Cost increases to $406.5B in new SAR

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

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 05:50

spazsinbad wrote:Jun/Jul 2017 F-35 FAST FACTs & F-35 Programme of Record: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&p=371895&hilit=snuck#p371895

...the 13 extra USMC F-35Bs noted thusly:
".... The current estimate for F-35 total procurement quantity increased from 2443 to 2456. This is the result of an increase of 13 F-35B aircraft to be procured by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The increase is reflected in both the aircraft and engine subprogram and results in a change from 680 to 693 ... The USMC validated this requirement through the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). ...."


This is interesting indeed.

Honestly, I think somewhere there is a Lt. Col. and a one/two star looking at each other, and saying, "But that's not exactly what we were asking for is it?" and the reply went something along the lines of, "well technically .... no? ... but do you want to try to give them back? That would confuse the people we don't want confused. We can use being 13 ahead, and we'll see where things are in the 2030's. Let's not confuse the gnomes in the basement right now."

Now I'm not saying stuff like that happens to $100M here, $100M there when you have multi 100 billion dollar programs, but I think I may have accidentally bought some computers out of the dining hall budget once ... okay, maybe I am saying stuff like that happens ... but sometimes you stop asking questions .... This is sort of why I asked the question in the beginning ...
I'm sure the Marines will take them for now. That I AM sure of. The funny thing is if I was understanding the Marine request correctly before, it will actually be 13 extra "C's" (beyond that request) that they end buying (or not buying) in the 2030's...

693 it is!!!

Just Saying,
BP
Last edited by blindpilot on 18 Jul 2017, 06:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 05:51

Why are they capping it at 60? Raised costs are not good.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 06:16

sunstersun wrote:Why are they capping it at 60? Raised costs are not good.


I assume you have shifted gears, and are not talking about B/C's right now but your comment is on this post ..
SpudmanWP wrote:The biggest driver in the increase of the procurement cost is that they plan to cap the annual F-35A buy at 60 instead of 80. This will add a decade to the time needed to buy all of the F-35s.

Think of it this way, take a 20 year home loan and change the terms to 30 years. Same idea. In the end, you have the same house but since you took longer to pay for it, the interest payments are a larger part fo the total coast.


The best answers we've been given clues to, is that the USAF is trying to manage its concurrency retrofit costs by stretching just the next few years out. Once the definitive 4.X block is in production I fully expect them to speed back up. However, for the record 60 ac a year is a pretty good clip. that's more than 1 a week. (with partner jets and B/Cs also coming off the line at the same time that's lines putting out an ac every few days) Keep in mind the production rate also has to match into base preparation, pilot and maintenance personnel training, and myriads of other things that cost something. So ultimately its costs distribution.

MHO
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23154
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 06:26

'BP' said above: "...if I was understanding the Marine request correctly before, it will actually be 13 extra "C's" (beyond that request)..." [where 'that request' is the current extra 13 F-35Bs?] Have you explained the 13 extra F-35Cs for the USMC before? Must have missed it by that much. :twisted: :devil: THIRTEEN - The DEVIL DOG DOZEN :doh: :mrgreen:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 06:52

Looking at both the B/C question and sunstersun's ..
sunstersun wrote:Why are they capping it at 60? Raised costs are not good.


Let's explore why the USMC wants AS MANY F-35Bs AS POSSIBLE YESTERDAY !!!!
from https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/navy-d ... ly-at-home
Davis, the deputy commandant for aviation, said at the hearing that until 18 months ago the Marines had ... a total of 174{F-18A/C/D planes]. 18 months ago, though, the service shrank its squadrons to just 10 planes each in an effort to share the planes better; the squadrons about to deploy were prioritized, leaving the “bench” squadrons with few aircraft to train on each day. Despite that change, Davis said he checked his readiness data the day before the hearing and saw that only 87 [out of 174] planes in the whole Marine Corps were mission capable:
[and it's getting worse each month]

The USMC has squadrons, pilots and ground crews ready to move to any "working air craft" now... today... anything to get more than 5 hours flying time a month for the guys not deployed. The F-18A/C SLEP will NOT be fast enough to help.

However, even though the Navy and Air Force have similar challenges their difficulty is in managing the transition while keeping operational squadrons operational. It takes months (even a year or more) to go from a F-16/F-18C squadron to an F-35A/C one. You try and smooth it out and keep the F-16s going to Syria et al, at the same time you put F-35As into their hangars back home. But the truth is that "squadron"/24 ac is down and off line while you switch over, for months. You can't just say let's shut down the AF/Navy for a year and come back in December with all F-35s. Someone has to fly in the operational world. And the training squadrons have to process new personnel/pilots.... and you can't fix it by saying let's just run twice as many squadrons for a year. For starters, you need to get twice as many pilots for short term until you're done.

Sixty or eighty, sending ac to depot, covering for them while they get refitted ... All of this is not an easy thing to do.

MHO, FWIW,
BP
PS I have done one of these transitions before (was the primary action officer for the Consolidated Wings Working Group office) ... going from B-52 squadrons being shut down, to new model ac U-2 squadrons setting up, while shutting down two wings and merging three others (while continuing to deploy operational missions, and shipping nukes out etc. etc.)
If they tell you they want 80 now instead of 60, you don't reply, "sure the more the merrier!" Trust me. It ain't easy!
Last edited by blindpilot on 18 Jul 2017, 07:01, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 06:52

[quote="blindpilot"]...However, for the record 60 ac a year is a pretty good clip. that's more than 1 a week. (with partner jets and B/Cs also coming off the line at the same time that's lines putting out an ac every few days) Keep in mind the production rate also has to match into base preparation, pilot and maintenance personnel training, and myriads of other things that cost something. So ultimately its costs distribution.[quote]

....with cost in mind and shared by partners and FMS and at Block 4+....FW, Nogoya, Cameri production capacity;
150 per year (3/wk.) for 10 years, 1,500 a/c?

.....should be about $45mil. each??? :doh:

.... replacing older F-15/6/8 (teens); and as you said, pilots/ maintainer training/ parts???


....sooo...max production? for how long?.....
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 07:08

neptune wrote:....sooo...max production? for how long?.....


Well, How long was "The Plan" for production for F-4 Phantoms, for F-16s? This plan "SAYS" it's into the 2030s(maybe 40s). Don't bet anything in Vegas on that.

<sarc ON> Of course we see the death spiral is just about to happen any day now ... yep ... real soon ... could be tomorrow ... any day now ... any day now .... yep real soon ... any day now .... death spiral ... real soon .... <sarc OFF>

MHO
BP
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8384
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 07:17

blindpilot wrote:The best answers we've been given clues to, is that the USAF is trying to manage its concurrency retrofit costs by stretching just the next few years out.


Everything ordered for the last 2 years are Block 3f so Concurrency is not an issue.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 07:26

spazsinbad wrote:'BP' said above: "...if I was understanding the Marine request correctly before, it will actually be 13 extra "C's" (beyond that request)..." [where 'that request' is the current extra 13 F-35Bs?] Have you explained the 13 extra F-35Cs for the USMC before? Must have missed it by that much. :twisted: :devil: THIRTEEN - The DEVIL DOG DOZEN :doh: :mrgreen:


I'll explain it this way. The number of ac and squadrons for specific purpose is where they came up with, "If we only get 340 + 80, we really need 13 (353) of those 80 C's to be Bs. And it's ok, we can make it work with 67 C's, and still make our commitment to the carriers. That's how I read the original requests as they evolved. Sooooo ... if they get 353+80(and not 67) = 433 + navy 260 = 693, then having gotten the 353 Bs they really asked for, the last 13 ac will bump the "67 is fine with us," back up to 80 ac (C's) on the back side. Soooo ... they're actually getting C's with the implementation of their basic request (353+67) moving from 680-693 (353+80). If that makes sense.

If I understood the original request right ... but Now if they get 366Bs, and still 67Cs ...I'm confusing myself again :D :D :D
BP
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 07:38

SpudmanWP wrote:
blindpilot wrote:The best answers we've been given clues to, is that the USAF is trying to manage its concurrency retrofit costs by stretching just the next few years out.


Everything ordered for the last 2 years are Block 3f so Concurrency is not an issue.


I'm not talking about the contract's FOC concurrency deals. I'm talking about post FOC, planned upgrade moves to normal 4.X (whichever is the hardware bump) continuing evolution. The AF seems to be wanting to bring all their 3i aircraft up to 4.x post FOC when that happens. There are basic depot upgrade costs ( and time off line) for that "Non-Development stage" work. That will be hundreds of 3i hardware aircraft that they don't want to leave at 3F, if I hear the chatter correctly. 80 or 60, 20 times a couple years is more than a few aircraft. And they are still getting 60. That also is a lot of aircraft.
Perhaps it's better to think of it as when we get the block 40 F-16s, we want to depot our block 30s to that same block 40 standard. One thing about the F-35 is that the difference between an A and a D and an E will be pretty much avionics plug and play, and software. The A-G evolution will look different with the F-35.

So I'm not talking about "Development Contract Concurrency" here. Neither is the AF. They just want more "F-16Cs" on the front side than all those "F-16As", because they plan on sending most of the As to depot. (I mean it's just going to be "plug and play" and software! not a new wing, which is a revolutionary change with the F-35) if that makes sense?

MHO,
BP
Last edited by blindpilot on 18 Jul 2017, 07:52, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23154
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 07:44

blindpilot wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'BP' said above: "...if I was understanding the Marine request correctly before, it will actually be 13 extra "C's" (beyond that request)..." [where 'that request' is the current extra 13 F-35Bs?] Have you explained the 13 extra F-35Cs for the USMC before? Must have missed it by that much. :twisted: :devil: THIRTEEN - The DEVIL DOG DOZEN :doh: :mrgreen:


I'll explain it this way. The number of ac and squadrons for specific purpose is where they came up with, "If we only get 340 + 80, we really need 13 (353) of those 80 C's to be Bs. And it's ok, we can make it work with 67 C's, and still make our commitment to the carriers. That's how I read the original requests as they evolved. Sooooo ... if they get 353+80(and not 67) = 433 + navy 260 = 693, then having gotten the 353 Bs they really asked for, the last 13 ac will bump the "67 is fine with us," back up to 80 ac (C's) on the back side. Soooo ... they're actually getting C's with the implementation of their basic request (353+67) moving from 680-693 (353+80). If that makes sense.

If I understood the original request right ... but Now if they get 366Bs, and still 67Cs ... I'm confusing myself again :D :D :D
BP

:devil: Wot do Mericans say these days "GOOD JOB". I used to be told that when potty training for the big ones! <sarc on> :doh:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5937
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 17:48



Thanks.

Cliffs notes, anyone?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 19:02

XanderCrews wrote:


Thanks.

Cliffs notes, anyone?


Marines get 366 Bees and 67 C's
AF buys 60 per year out years. 2456 total.
USN/USMC last plane in 2032, USAF last plane in 2044.
Costs for 13 USMC ac and all those 204X AF out year purchases gets over $400M, as reported.

Now this is all predicting what will happen in 2032 thru 2044. If you know that please tell me whichs stock I should buy right now, and what horse to bet on in 2030, in the Kentucky Derby.

BP
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post18 Jul 2017, 19:48

XanderCrews wrote:


Thanks.

Cliffs notes, anyone?

Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35A = 669 nmi
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505 nmi
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640 nmi

New production schedule...
2007 - USAF=2 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=2
2008 - USAF=6 : USN/USMC=6 : Total=12
2009 - USAF=7 : USN/USMC=7 : Total=14
2010 - USAF=10 : USN/USMC=20 : Total=30
2011 - USAF=22 : USN/USMC=10 : Total=32
2012 - USAF=18 : USN/USMC=13 : Total=31
2013 - USAF=19 : USN/USMC=10 : Total=29
2014 - USAF=19 : USN/USMC=10 : Total=29
2015 - USAF=28 : USN/USMC=10 : Total=38
2016 - USAF=47 : USN/USMC=21 : Total=68
2017 - USAF=48 : USN/USMC=26 : Total=74
2018 - USAF=46 : USN/USMC=24 : Total=70
2019 - USAF=48 : USN/USMC=29 : Total=77
2020 - USAF=48 : USN/USMC=36 : Total=84
2021 - USAF=54 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=99
2022 - USAF=54 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=99
2023 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2024 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2025 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2026 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2027 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2028 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2029 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=45 : Total=105
2030 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=39 : Total=99
2031 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=24 : Total=84
2032 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=63
2033 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2034 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2035 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2036 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2037 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2038 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2039 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2040 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2041 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2042 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2043 - USAF=60 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=60
2044 - USAF=27 : USN/USMC=0 : Total=27

Total - USAF=1763 : USN/USMC=693
Grand Total = 2456
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests