Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

Quote:

"Foolish", is the only word in the above statement that holds water. Programs do not under-perform at the magnitude this one has. Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. Not in the universe we live in.

In March, the DoD projected that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50 years. That new estimate is up from $1 trillion the previous year. I understand things change, but HOW IN THE F&*% can you tell the bill payers, that the previous information you gave them was off by.......oh.........just........450 billion dollars? "Minor oversight?" "We missed a decimal place?" "Oh.......it's that damn inflation, we forgot and left it out of last year's estimate?"

Foolish is accepting an apples to oranges comparison at face value. The F-35 is the first program where the costs have been GUESSTIMATED over a 50 year period, and then compared to programs whose costs were based upon 30-35yrs, and failing to take cost saving measures into account. There is simply no way to guess what the costs of the program will be over a 50yr period, much less use that guess for purposes of moral outrage. Additionally, you may want to double check your "facts" about how well other programs have done.

Quote:

On a unit basis, LM's initial IOC promise was 2008 at $69 million per unit. Ah...........yeah.............what squadron are those planes flying with now? "Oh, well we ACTUALLY meant 2018 for $169 million a unit. Sorry about that, it was just a typographical error on the original power point. We let the guy that put that estimate together go. He works for GM now."

You may want to factor in that FRP won't occur until after IOC. You may also want to factor that the current unit cost is about $40 million less than your figure. It's amazing how that whole economies of scale works.

Quote:

Seriously, name another weapon system that has EVER increased in cost on a magnitude comparable to this one.

On second thought, never mind, because you can't. The customers have become slaves to the producers, exactly as Eisenhower predicted. Smart man Dwight was.

Not even this program has increased in cost, the way that you're asserting matter of factly. You have done absolutely no homework into the claims being made, or bothered to check with people that are familiar with acquisition/development/etc... processes.

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

'redbird87' I think you are mixing up quotes - try 'wrightwing' for a quote that you object to perhaps. I have not made a comment that: "...about it being natural for a program to go over budget and it being foolish to expect better, was more than I could take. I do expect better....". Thanks. Why not start your own topic thread on items about the F-35 that you want to vent about?

That's not exactly what I said. The point that I was making, was that from a historical context, very few programs have come in on time/early, without need of any modifications, and no cost increases. To expect that a program as unprecedented as the F-35 wouldn't follow historical trends, is a bit of an optimistic view.

wrightwing wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Let's try it the other way, what evidence do you have, given that the aircraft is still in the early stages of testing, that it can be considered agile?

Well, given that pilots that have flown it have said that its similar to superior to clean F-16s/18s in handling, and has been flown to 9.9Gs. The area of the flight envelope that hasn't been explored as much is the high AOA/post stall regime, and the >M1.6. One can declare an aircraft agile without those test points.

Similar to superior acceleration compared to a clean F-16 was the quote I believe (please try to keep up with the dogma) and I think it was a couple of Italian(?) guys who said it handled more like the F-18 than the F-16. But you have to ask, if the aircraft wasn’t able to go to more than 20 degrees AoA, what are they basing that on? Either that it handles generally like an F-18 in level flight without any high AoA manoeuvres (another heavy twin tailed fighter) or they’re basing that opinion on simulator experience.

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

So how many raptor pilots have flown the aircraft in its current configuration at 55 degrees AoA? Has Mr Beasley flown a representative test article of the aircraft to all points of its theoretical envelope? If Mr Beasley claims he has or that ‘he knows’ that it will successfully achieve those milestones despite not having actually done it himself, how much credence should you give that opinion?

Mr. Beesley had access to a far greater amount of information than you or I. He's given me no reason to doubt what he has gone on record, and said.

So that would be a no, he hasn’t done any of those things then right?

wrightwing wrote:

You have the greater burden of proof, when you make a claim that the F-35 can't do something, that was part of the requirements. I have no reason to assume that the plane will fail to meet its requirements. The timeline has changed, but it hasn't been failing to meet one KPP after another. Were that the case, then I might share your scepticism. The fact that the F-22 was also designed by LM, gives me a reasonable confidence level in their technical ability to design an agile aircraft.

Ah yes, the craftsman produces one excellent work therefore all his subsequent works must be excellent as well. Good theory. But we were talking about the burden of proof. My claim is that LM (the manufacturer) must provide it to support their capability claims for the aircraft; your claim is that LM need prove nothing and I must prove they are wrong. Hmmm.

wrightwing wrote:

…Or in other words, it's not shocking when something takes longer, costs more, or needs some modifications. These things happen in every program. The foolish view is to expect that things would be any otherwise.

Foolish. Like LM imagining they could proceed directly to full rate production with only sufficient testing to “validate their models”? That sort of foolish?

Spudman wrote:

The earliest IOC date given was 2010, and that was before SWAT. Since then the economy has taken a dive and the decision was made to stretch SDD instead of investing the money required to complete the post SWAT timeline.

Did you just try to blame the F-35 production delays on the GFC Spudman? I though they came to the conclusion that continuing to build aircraft that required substantial re-work was an *extreme* waste of taxpayers money and that they should slow down production until they’d ironed out the problems, that is, make the minimum number of mistake jets they could without shutting down the line completely.

Spudman wrote:

Maybe this will help you understand the difference in costs.

And maybe this will help you to understand why the Navy is so horrified by the cost of these aircraft:

redbird87 wrote:

"The new baseline forecasts the average cost of the F-35 fighter, including research and development and inflation, at $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the F135 engine built by Pratt & Whitney." That's getting pretty close to $169.

You're just making my point. The $69 was for the plane purchase price only (URF) in baseline dollars (no inflation) and not the complete PAUC price in "Then year" dollars (inflation included). So tying to compare the two and say "look how the price has risen" is complete BS.

jeffb wrote:

Similar to superior acceleration compared to a clean F-16 was the quote I believe (please try to keep up with the dogma) and I think it was a couple of Italian(?) guys who said it handled more like the F-18 than the F-16. But you have to ask, if the aircraft wasn’t able to go to more than 20 degrees AoA, what are they basing that on? Either that it handles generally like an F-18 in level flight without any high AoA manoeuvres (another heavy twin tailed fighter) or they’re basing that opinion on simulator experience.

That's superior acceleration/handling armed vs. an unarmed F-16. That's a pretty key distinction. Hang weapons on an F-16, and the difference is even more dramatic. As for the F-18 comparisons, those were the B/C models, and USMC/Naval aviators made remarks. You're still hung up on high AoA- Unless you're flying at low speeds, you're not going to be utilizing this area of the envelope, or in other words, you're not going to be flying at 600kts and 20-55 deg AoA. What this means is that you can still compare other flight characteristics other than straight and level(turn rates, acceleration, climb rates, etc...).

Quote:

So that would be a no, he hasn’t done any of those things then right?

We can sit here and speculate, and still never arive at a conclusion. The difference is that you're listening to people that aren't involved in the program, and who haven't flown the plane.

Quote:

Ah yes, the craftsman produces one excellent work therefore all his subsequent works must be excellent as well. Good theory. But we were talking about the burden of proof. My claim is that LM (the manufacturer) must provide it to support their capability claims for the aircraft; your claim is that LM need prove nothing and I must prove they are wrong. Hmmm.

It's obvious that you're unaware of the logical fallacy that you're making, and how that burden of proof thing works. I'm not taking a great leap by assuming that the plane will perform reasonably close to the specifications. You on the other hand are claiming matter of factly that it can't perform in certain ways, simply because it hasn't reached that part of the testing phase. You have no other evidence to support your claim. I on the other hand have seen test points claimed, and reached.

Quote:

Did you just try to blame the F-35 production delays on the GFC Spudman?

No, read it again. I said that that the DoD shares some of the blame for the delay in IOC.
1. The original plan was for IOC to be declared as part of IOT&E, now the plan is for after IOT&E.
2. When they decided to stretch SDD (not production), they could have spent money to increase the SDD workforce in order to meet the original SDD timeline. Instead, they decided to use the same workforce and increase the timeline. Both plans would have cost more money, so there was no real long-term cost savings. What it did do was to keep the annual SDD budget the same and increase the number of years for SDD.

I understand, while not agreeing with, the decision to delay production ramp-up of the F-35. I feel it was a short-term budget decision and will not balance when you add up the cost of keeping the 4th gen assets supported & flying for several additional years.

For the increase in production cost, I lay a big chunk of that at the feet of the DoD. The original price estimates were based on an annual build rate of 120 F-35As. They dropped that to 80. A drop of 33% of the proposed annual build rate had a massive negative effect on the total cost. Before you say it, yes I also blame LM for bad management and not planning in enough of a buffer in the SDD cycle.

wrightwing wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Similar to superior acceleration compared to a clean F-16 was the quote I believe (please try to keep up with the dogma) and I think it was a couple of Italian(?) guys who said it handled more like the F-18 than the F-16. But you have to ask, if the aircraft wasn’t able to go to more than 20 degrees AoA, what are they basing that on? Either that it handles generally like an F-18 in level flight without any high AoA manoeuvres (another heavy twin tailed fighter) or they’re basing that opinion on simulator experience.

That's superior acceleration/handling armed vs. an unarmed F-16.

You're embroidering. The original quote you’re referring to deliberately made no mention of the fuel state or armament load when he claimed that the F-35 out accelerated an F-16.

My statement “it handles generally like an F-18 in level flight without any high AoA manoeuvres (another heavy twin tailed fighter)” covers most of the rest of your reply, the other bit being that the F-18 is a high AoA capable fighter. Obviously they couldn’t make a comparison of the handling of the two aircraft in this regard if the F-35 is restricted to low AoAs.

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

So that would be a no, he hasn’t done any of those things then right?

We can sit here and speculate, and still never arrive at a conclusion. The difference is that you're listening to people that aren't involved in the program, and who haven't flown the plane.

I am listening to people who have flown the plane. Your problem is that you're also listening to people who have flown the plane but then you're adding on bits that you heard around the forums or which you've made up yourself.

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

Ah yes, the craftsman produces one excellent work therefore all his subsequent works must be excellent as well. Good theory. But we were talking about the burden of proof. My claim is that LM (the manufacturer) must provide it to support their capability claims for the aircraft; your claim is that LM need prove nothing and I must prove they are wrong. Hmmm.

It's obvious that you're unaware of the logical fallacy that you're making, and how that burden of proof thing works. I'm not taking a great leap by assuming that the plane will perform reasonably close to the specifications. You on the other hand are claiming matter of factly that it can't perform in certain ways, simply because it hasn't reached that part of the testing phase. You have no other evidence to support your claim. I on the other hand have seen test points claimed, and reached.

I saw what you did there, there is no logical fallacy in demanding evidence of the truthfulness of a claim. How could there be? In fact assuming a claim is true without any supporting evidence is plain illogical (although another word springs to mind).

I should point out again that I have not stated that the aircraft will fail to ever fly at greater than 20 degrees AoA which is what you seem to be implying. I did make the statement that it is unable to do so at the moment. Whether that is purely because of flight testing restrictions or actual issues with the aircraft remains to be seen but I will not accept the “meme” that the F-35 is capable of flying at 55 degrees AoA until it does so reliably and repeatedly.

Just remember this day, in a few months once the high AoA portion of the envelope is tested, and we can revisit this topic(though I suspect you'll move on to the next KPP which hasn't been tested yet).

Now this is a briefing/talk that should get wide coverage I'm hoping....

"We didn’t know what 90 percent of the switches did" by Bill Sweetman on Aug 02, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... f9b8f2f73d

BEST QUOTE: "..."At Red Flag in the 1970s we were told that the MiG-23 would sweep its wings [forward] and kill you. Ron Iverson [4477th operations officer 1975-79, retired as a Lt Gen] flew one of the first ones. He said, “don’t worry about it -- most of the time it’s trying to kill me”....

JUMP to read it all of course.

redbird87 wrote:

"Foolish", is the only word in the above statement that holds water. Programs do not under-perform at the magnitude this one has. Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. Not in the universe we live in.

Oh really? Last time I checked the list of DoD programs and their status, there were 13 CURRENT programs performing worse than the JSF out of about 50 in the report.

Perhaps you should widen your reading a little.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11233sp.pdf

Couple good news stories from this year's GAO selected program assessment.

"Of the 96 programs or components in DOD’s portfolio that reported program acquisition unit cost data, 61 are planning to deliver capabilities at higher unit costs than estimated a year ago"

"Less than half of the programs in the 2011 portfolio met cost-growth targets used to measure DOD’s progress on addressing GAO’s weapon system acquisition high-risk area"

Just a little sample of some programs who's performance are not even REMOTELY as bad as the F-35's......

Program - Unit Cost % Increase - % Increase per year
DDG 1000 - 543% increase - 38% per annum
Excalibur - 282% increase - 31% pa
Global Hawk - 172% - 17% pa
SBIRS - 231% - 14% pa
LCS - 76% - 13% pa

Yes, not even REMOTELY close to .....
F-35 - 78% increase - 8.6% increase per year

Perspective's a bitch aint it.

munny wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

"Foolish", is the only word in the above statement that holds water. Programs do not under-perform at the magnitude this one has. Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. Not in the universe we live in.

Oh really? Last time I checked the list of DoD programs and their status, there were 13 CURRENT programs performing worse than the JSF out of about 50 in the report.

Perhaps you should widen your reading a little.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11233sp.pdf

Couple good news stories from this year's GAO selected program assessment.

"Of the 96 programs or components in DOD’s portfolio that reported program acquisition unit cost data, 61 are planning to deliver capabilities at higher unit costs than estimated a year ago"

"Less than half of the programs in the 2011 portfolio met cost-growth targets used to measure DOD’s progress on addressing GAO’s weapon system acquisition high-risk area"

Just a little sample of some programs who's performance are not even REMOTELY as bad as the F-35's......

Program - Unit Cost % Increase - % Increase per year
DDG 1000 - 543% increase - 38% per annum
Excalibur - 282% increase - 31% pa
Global Hawk - 172% - 17% pa
SBIRS - 231% - 14% pa
LCS - 76% - 13% pa

Yes, not even REMOTELY close to .....
F-35 - 78% increase - 8.6% increase per year

Perspective's a bitch aint it.

Indeed... indeed.

munny wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

"Foolish", is the only word in the above statement that holds water. Programs do not under-perform at the magnitude this one has. Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. Not in the universe we live in.

Oh really? Last time I checked the list of DoD programs and their status, there were 13 CURRENT programs performing worse than the JSF out of about 50 in the report.

Perhaps you should widen your reading a little.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11233sp.pdf

Couple good news stories from this year's GAO selected program assessment.

"Of the 96 programs or components in DOD’s portfolio that reported program acquisition unit cost data, 61 are planning to deliver capabilities at higher unit costs than estimated a year ago"

"Less than half of the programs in the 2011 portfolio met cost-growth targets used to measure DOD’s progress on addressing GAO’s weapon system acquisition high-risk area"

Just a little sample of some programs who's performance are not even REMOTELY as bad as the F-35's......

Program - Unit Cost % Increase - % Increase per year
DDG 1000 - 543% increase - 38% per annum
Excalibur - 282% increase - 31% pa
Global Hawk - 172% - 17% pa
SBIRS - 231% - 14% pa
LCS - 76% - 13% pa

Yes, not even REMOTELY close to .....
F-35 - 78% increase - 8.6% increase per year

Perspective's a bitch aint it.

I was about to say... he should look at some of the historical programs: Seawolf, F-22, A-12, among other. Those were just as bad if not much much worse.

"Remotely close"

Close, in a remote way Very Happy

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... entire.pdf

F-18...185% with virtually NO concurrency. (Page 12 of the pdf at the link)

Back to the WVR discussion, with legacy systems, is a close-in fight more or less likely at night given visibility constraints? Once they work out the bugs in the HMD, it's superior night vision should weigh heavily in the F-35's favor.

Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

JSF WVR Air to Air Combat