Forum: General F-35 Forum

popcorn wrote:

Here are the 2011 Budget figures amounting to $86.3M per F-18E/F and $91.6M per Growler. What cost do these represent?

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release ... seid=13531

DOD Certifies F/A-18 Multi-year Procurement

Today, the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics certified to Congress that the proposed F/A-18 multiyear procurement met statutory requirements, including substantial savings, for 124 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The proposed agreement will run for four years, from fiscal 2010 through 2013.

Now that the Department of Defense has certified the multiyear procurement request, the Department of the Navy will continue to work with Congress to gain necessary legislative authorities required before the Navy may enter into a multiyear contract.

With this multiyear procurement, the Navy Department intends to acquire the remaining program of record for the 515 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and 114 EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy’s fiscal 2011 budget request, sent to Congress Feb. 1, includes $1.9 billion to buy 22 Super Hornets and $1.1 billion for 12 Growlers. In fiscal 2012, the Navy plans to buy 24 more Growlers and one Super Hornet, with 25 more Super Hornets in fiscal 2013.

The Department of the Navy is committed to reducing acquisition costs in delivering capability to the warfighter.

Interesting year to look at the numbers. Congress apparently added 9 E/Fs to the Navy's PB FY2011 request, making the total FY2011 buy 31 units. The final contract negotiation with Boeing resulted in a lower than anticipated Procurement Unit Cost (called Gross/Weapons System Unit Cost in later budgets,) changing from $83.107M (a budget estimate) to the actual number of $71.698M (which is reflected in the Navy PB FY2013.)

The $1.9B ($86.3M each) figure for 22 -E/Fs in the announcement looks like a bad rounding of the Procurement Cost estimate of $1.828B ($83.1M) as reflected in the Navy PB FY2011.

The procurement cost includes airframe, engines, contractor and government furnished electronics [including radar, ECM, towed decoy, ATFLIR] - armament, ECO, ancillary equipment, contractor support costs, technical publications, and initial spares.

It does not include logistical and operational Life Cycle Costs, like weapons, fuel, training, maintenance, simulators, additional spares and support equipment, modifications and upgrades, facilities, manpower, etc.

F-16.net Sponsor

The reduction in WSC has more to do with all the non-airplane related buys for those 31 F-18s.

In other words, the REC Flyaway dropped less than a million dollars per airframe (FY2012 $55.88 mil vs FY2013 $54.68 mil) when they went from 22 to 31 airframes.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The reduction in WSC has more to do with all the non-airplane related buys for those 31 F-18s.

In other words, the REC Flyaway dropped less than a million dollars per airframe (FY2012 $55.88 mil vs FY2013 $54.68 mil) when they went from 22 to 31 airframes.

Rec Flyaway from the Navy PB FY2011 was estimated to be $60.336M for a buy of 22 jets. Rec Flyaway from the Navy PB FY2013 budget for FY 2011 was $54.68M for a buy of 31 jets - an actual number.

Check the FY2012 budget. The REC Flyaway for those 22 had gone down to $55.88, an actual number Wink

The main difference from the FY2011 and FY2012 REC Flyaway is an ~$2mil reduction in both airframe and CFE electronics. I wonder what they cut out of the contract?

SpudmanWP wrote:

Check the FY2012 budget. The REC Flyaway for those 22 had gone down to $55.88, an actual number Wink

The main difference from the FY2011 and FY2012 REC Flyaway is an ~$2mil reduction in both airframe and CFE electronics. I wonder what they cut out of the contract?

It looks like the MYPIII contract terms were finalized after February 2010 submission of the FY2011 budget (in the notes, it says that it is a single year contract with options.) In the FY2012 budget, the MYPIII cost is reflected, but only for the original 22 units planned for FY2011. In the FY2013 budget, the FY2011 buy is shown to increase by 9 to 31 units. It looks like Congress added the 9 jets during FY2011, but after the FY2012 PB request was submitted, presumably to take advantage of the MYPIII contract price. So the FY2012 PB does not reflect actual costs savings (entirely) since it doesn't reflect the addition of 9 jets in FY2011.

The reduction in Airframe and CFE/E reflects the economies realized by the MYPIII contract, which amounts to ~10%. Nothing was deleted to achieve the savings.

FY2011 PB / FY2011 buy of 22 units -E/F (pre MYPIII)
Airframe/CFE: $42.157M
CFE/E: $6.248M
URF: $60.336M

FY2012 PB / FY2011 buy of 22 units -E/F (MYPIII)
Airframe/CFE: $38.717M
CFE/E: $4.229M
URF: $54.904M

FY2013 PB / FY2011 buy of 31 units -E/F (MYPIII)
Airframe/CFE: $38.697M
CFE/E: $4.227M
URF: $54.687M

This discussion was originally about a contract announcement of May, 2010, explaining what was included in the $1.9B purchase of 22 jets in FY 2011.

I have a hard time believing that the CFE can drop 23% in one year (FY2011-12) without any increase in order numbers. going by Occam's razor means that something was removed from the price calculation.

hb_pencil wrote:

river_otter wrote:

F16VIPER wrote:

1. Do a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the operational needs for the upcoming 10 year period. And how the intended weaponsystem fits into the force structure.
The F-35 program did not!

The F-35 is a 30-40 year program if not more. Looking at the needs 10 years out is like hanging curtains slightly ahead of your front bumper, then trying to drive. You may know exactly what your hoodline looks like without distractions, but the things you really need to know aren't there. However, going out farther than that, your evaluation of the situation becomes more based on guesswork than thorough analysis, and your predictions of needs become less precise and more speculative.

I kinda find this entire discussion off the mark and cringing to listen to. I've worked in this field and know quite a few people who are involved in it. Both Canada and the US has research arms that are dedicated to future warfare. This is the Canadian Army's group. ...

Sorry I was misunderstood on this. You've hit part of my point here. My main objection was to the stupid suggestion that there needs to be a specifically 10 year analysis for what's closer to a 50 year program (with development figured in). There needed to be a 50 year analysis, the kind of futuristic analysis you refer to here.

Quote:

That's why the original poster's assertion that the program did not do "a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the operational needs" is false and fundamentally ridiculous if you're familiar with US procurement. How would you set your performance needs if you didn't have an idea about what the operational threats might be in the future?

The other half of my point is sort of hit here. A 50 year analysis is inherently less accurate than a 10 year analysis. Not that some prediction of what you need isn't done, just that it can't be as "thorough and comprehensive" as a 10 year analysis, and a 50 year program's appropriate analysis can't be held to the same standards of accurate prediction as a 10 year program. The justification for the F-35 was appropriately "thorough and comprehensive" to the nature of the program.

SpudmanWP wrote:

I have a hard time believing that the CFE can drop 23% in one year (FY2011-12) without any increase in order numbers. going by Occam's razor means that something was removed from the price calculation.

What budget are you looking at?

FY2011: FY2013 PB

Airframe/CFE: $38.697000M
CFE/E: $4.227260M
GFE/E: $1.718194M

Total: $44.642454M

FY2012: FY2013 PB

Airframe/CFE: $39.036140M
CFE/E: $4.297.321M
GFE/E: $1.822.143M

Total: $45.155604M

FY2013: FY2013 PB

Airframe/CFE: $33.220346M
CFE/E: $7.135962M
GFE/E: $2.188269M

Total: $42.544577M

Overall, it looks like a ~5-6% drop in costs from FY2012 - FY2013, which is consistent with the MYBIII terms, where greater savings are realized in later years. It also looks like some revisions between FY12/FY13 as to what constitutes CFE and CFE/E, as there was a precipitous ~15% drop in Airframe/CFE and a simultaneous ~60% increase in CFE/E - or it could indicate the inclusion of the new IRST. There is also a ~17% uptick in GFE in FY13.

Page 8 of the MYBIII justification in FY2012 PB estimates multiyear cost avoidance by FY, with the greatest effect in FY2013 [$357.4M], with lesser effect in the other years.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

So What Makes a Good Weapons Program Anyways?