Forum: Program and politics

Quote:

$1T to operate a fleet of 2,443 F-35 for 50 years
By Andrea Shalal-Esa (Reuters) WASHINGTON | Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:35pm EST

"Lieutenant General Terry Robling, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, said top defense officials agreed last week to continue low-rate production of the new radar-evading warplane built by Lockheed Martin Corp, while keeping a close eye on the cost of maintaining and operating the new jets."

Robling:"We understand the costs are high. We understand that we need to do something, we need to make decisions down the road."

"Robling said the cost estimate would likely decline in coming years as more jets were built and flown, reducing the reliance on comparison data from other aircraft programs."

"Unless the estimates do come down substantially, the Pentagon may have to decide to buy fewer airplanes, reduce the number of anticipated flight hours, or skip adding certain capabilities to the plane, Robling said, although he noted that decision point could still be five to 10 years off."

""It's an unaffordable program at the numbers that we're using," Robling said. But he cautioned that the F-35 was still in development and much of the reliability data was preliminary, based on just 2,500 hours of flight time on the new warplane.""

""The Pentagon's high-level Defense Acquisition Board met last week to review the F-35 program and its sustainment cost, but the F-35 program office is still working on a comprehensive review of the operation and maintenance costs, Robling said.""

"Decisions on the program's longer-term future and the expected total procurement amount were still a long way off, Robling said. "Over the next couple of years, maybe even five years, 10 years, I think the program will mature to the point where we go, 'OK, this is where we're going to stop.' Or we'll decide to continue because we see them getting the price lower.""

"Roblin said Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office had made great strides in better managing the program over the past two years. "They've driven out a lot of cost, and they're still finding ways to do that."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... RV20120226

F-16.net Sponsor

$1T to operate a fleet of 2,443 F-35 for 50 years

Sounds about right....

Anyone want to fathom a guess how much it's costed to support ALL the legacy fighters for the last 50 years?

You realize that would include things back to the F-111 days which entered service in '64!?!

Older Century Fighters in service well after 1962...
F-111
F-117
F-4
F-5
A-6
A-7
A-10
A-12 (Botched but still cost the US GOV loads of $$)
F-14
F-15
F-16
F/A-18 (and Supers)
Harriers

Calculate 50 years BACK from today and adjust for inflation... See what you can come up with?

I highly doubt it's less than $1T.

Then again maybe someone should project the cost of more Super Bugs, new F-15SE, and new F-16V, (hell throw in some..) A-10D and AV-8Cs, buy them in equal total numbers; 2443

(Like who the He|| picks a number that ends in three!?!)

Anyhow...

Throw in the development, flight-test, initial fielding (they're almost all new aircraft with new needs) and sustainment costs for 50 years.

I'd bet a round of drinks it would be MORE than $1T; considering 5 different airframes.

Even with the costs, I'll bet anyone, any day, any time, that having 3 similar F-35 models will cost substantially LESS over 50 years than 3 different airframes, from 2 or 3 different manufacturers. It's all about logistics

(Insert UPS jingle here)

My Two Cents

TEG

If the Osprey example is any guide, the only thing for certain is that the government beancounters including GAO tend to be overly conservative in their assumptions.

From the linked article:

"It's an unaffordable program at the numbers that we're using," Robling said. But he cautioned that the F-35 was still in development and much of the reliability data was preliminary, based on just 2,500 hours of flight time on the new warplane.

For instance, the cost of operating the V-22 Osprey had come down about 30 percent since it was first fielded, Robling said. Aggressive oversight, increased reliability of parts and different flying guidelines had helped cut the cost from $12,000 per flight hour to a record low of $8,300 last month, he noted.

"We'll learn that on JSF as we go. We'll expect those costs to come down," he said, adding that maintainers would never accept the low readiness rates now factored in for the F-35.

"We're going to get better, we'll drive cost out and we'll drive readiness up. But it won't happen until we start buying the airplane" in greater numbers, Robling said.

The Pentagon's chief weapons tester said in a December report that the mean flight hours between critical failures on the Air Force version of the F-35 were about 2.65 hours, but Robling said that number was "ridiculous" since it was based on the low number of hours flown during developmental testing.

WORK ON LOWERING SUSTAINMENT COSTS ONGOING

Robling said the F-35 was also the first big Pentagon weapons program to be evaluated using a 50-year lifetime cost estimate -- about 20 years longer than most programs -- which made the program seem artificially more expensive.

Quote:

the Pentagon may have to decide to buy fewer airplanes, reduce the number of anticipated flight hours, or skip adding certain capabilities to the plane

OR dump other aircraft at an increased rate
OR dump other programs at an increased rate
OR vote in another congress that really caps social programs (yea right!)
--these outyear predictions aren't worth too much since it could really be anybodys guess

Over the period of 50 years, factoring a modest 3% GDP growth per year, the sum of USA's GPD each year will come to $1.5 quadrillion. The F-35 budget will come to 0.063% of that figure.

Assuming a cut back $400billion annual defence budget increasing by 3% a year, the US will spend $45trillion on defence over the next 50 years. The F-35 component will account for 2% of defence spending over the next 50 years.

Doing the math for 300 flight hours per year the number equates to $27,288.58 per hour. The question is what goes into that number? Does it include military construction and a pro-rated share of infrastructure and administrative costs or just flight and maintenance costs. Probably the best aircraft to compare it to would be the C-130 and B-52 since both have been around for over 50 years.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Calculate 50 years BACK from today and adjust for inflation... See what you can come up with?

I highly doubt it's less than $1T.

TEG

Hello, TEG:

I want to commend you, TEG, for offering perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of total costs related to the F-35’s program life. My guess is that your conclusion, as quoted above, is thoroughly supported by historical fact. I would only add that US defense planners likely use some multiple of 2,443 to arrive at the number of legacies required to field a total force capability equivalent to 2,443 F-35’s. Naturally, the legacy alternative becomes even more cost-prohibitive in that case, thus strengthening your conclusion. Loren Thompson’s analysis last September (see link below) offers further evidence supporting your conclusion:

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/pentagon-caused-most-of-the-increases-in-f-35-costs-so-it-can-fix-them?a=1&c=1171

Thompson’s analysis, of course, demonstrates how the Pentagon’s poorly formed assumptions can easily mislead one to make flawed conclusions. His example of projecting legacy sustainment costs out 50 years is highly illuminating. After all, no sane planner would assume that the US military would be operating 70-something-year-old aircraft some 50 years from now. Thompson’s example shows that he is up to the task of being just as silly as Pentagon planners are when it comes to forming highly doubtful assumptions. Finally, the Pentagon’s practice of stating figures in then-year dollars nullifies the value of those figures in any kind of comparative analysis. All comparative analyses require constant-year conversions to remain meaningful.

munny wrote:

Over the period of 50 years, factoring a modest 3% GDP growth per year, the sum of USA's GPD each year will come to $1.5 quadrillion. The F-35 budget will come to 0.063% of that figure.

Greetings, munny:

Though I don’t typically check poster math, your 1.5 quadrillion figure seemed a tad high. My calculation comes to about 69 trillion at 3% growth. What say you?

Playing the numbers game..

Analysts: Over next 50 years, military bands to cost Pentagon … $50 billion?

“The nation’s military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years,” Lexington Institute COO and industry consultant Loren Thompson said.

After adjusting that figure for inflation and other factors, Thompson projects the nominal costs of the bands will approach $50 billion — a price tag he derided as “ridiculous.”…

The $50 billion tab calculated by Thompson includes travel for band members, salaries and a range of personnel costs.

The sheer number of military bands helps explain the projected total.

USMilFan wrote:

munny wrote:

Over the period of 50 years, factoring a modest 3% GDP growth per year, the sum of USA's GPD each year will come to $1.5 quadrillion. The F-35 budget will come to 0.063% of that figure.

Greetings, munny:

Though I don’t typically check poster math, your 1.5 quadrillion figure seemed a tad high. My calculation comes to about 69 trillion at 3% growth. What say you?

The GDP for the year 2061 would be about $59T, but the sum of the annual GDP's up to 61 would be the $1.5Q figure. The $1T F-35 was a total up to 2061.

My apologies, munny--I was just about to retract my question when you replied. I get it now. Very Happy

popcorn wrote:

Playing the numbers game..

Analysts: Over next 50 years, military bands to cost Pentagon … $50 billion?

“The nation’s military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years,” Lexington Institute COO and industry consultant Loren Thompson said.

After adjusting that figure for inflation and other factors, Thompson projects the nominal costs of the bands will approach $50 billion — a price tag he derided as “ridiculous.”…

The $50 billion tab calculated by Thompson includes travel for band members, salaries and a range of personnel costs.

The sheer number of military bands helps explain the projected total.

Dr. Thompson called it....
http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/bookmark ... orce-bands