Forum: General F-35 Forum

I think that Sweetman does bring up some valid points here.

The JSF has so far been over budget and behind schedule. Whatever the reasons for this, losing years of schedule so early in the program has a compounding effect further down the road. Supposing that the F-35 goes into full production three years later than planned, that equates to three years' worth of fighters you don't have in the 2028-2030 period. And given how much higher the F-35's price has been compared to prior estimates, we've no reason to believe its full rate production flyaway costs will be what they had predicted five to ten years ago.

Don't get me wrong... spouting off about the $200 million flyaway cost of low rate production is just wrong. However the fact that the JSF has so far been behind schedule and over budget serves as no indication that it will meet both in the end. It is not the first fighter program to do this, but it was one of the key program goals to avoid such problems. If we saw dramatic improvements in production and manufacturing that will compensate for the loss of time and money, we would have good reason to believe their predictions are accurate. In order for the program to catch up, the full rate production will have to be significantly better than what was previously estimated. I'm also not one of those people that want to see the F-35 die. I want to see it succeed, yet cannot ignore what has already come to pass.

F-16.net Sponsor

battleshipagincourt wrote:

I think that Sweetman does bring up some valid points here.

The JSF has so far been over budget and behind schedule. Whatever the reasons for this, losing years of schedule so early in the program has a compounding effect further down the road. Supposing that the F-35 goes into full production three years later than planned, that equates to three years' worth of fighters you don't have in the 2028-2030 period. And given how much higher the F-35's price has been compared to prior estimates, we've no reason to believe its full rate production flyaway costs will be what they had predicted five to ten years ago.

Don't get me wrong... spouting off about the $200 million flyaway cost of low rate production is just wrong. However the fact that the JSF has so far been behind schedule and over budget serves as no indication that it will meet both in the end. It is not the first fighter program to do this, but it was one of the key program goals to avoid such problems. If we saw dramatic improvements in production and manufacturing that will compensate for the loss of time and money, we would have good reason to believe their predictions are accurate. In order for the program to catch up, the full rate production will have to be significantly better than what was previously estimated. I'm also not one of those people that want to see the F-35 die. I want to see it succeed, yet cannot ignore what has already come to pass.

And what does any of this have to do what was originally posted about his lacking evidence or misinterpretation of the facts in the original article?

I mean if you want to rant... just say so.

The DoD cut the rate for the planned max 120 per year for the F-35A to 80. If they wanted to they could all a few more (5-10 per year) to make up for it and be back at their original goals for 2030.

It seems to me this all pretty easily explained by the budget deficit. The DoD brass can't very well say, 'The political class in this country have spent us into bankruptcy, so we can no longer afford to buy to our original plan. Therefore, we're going to buy new F-35's at lower rates, and fix up the old jalopies as we go to carry us over.' Saying THAT in congressional testimony is a short road to the end of your career. Instead, they claim it's necessary to extend the test and eval phase. That gets everyone in government off the hook as the source of the problem.

In the end - no surprise here! - much of the blame falls on Congress. Rolling Eyes

Color me shocked.

OR instead they can say this. Please feel free to re-interpret it for me because I don't claim to understand. But anyway... Very Happy

"Daily Report - Monday September 17, 2012 —John A Tirpak

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/HomePage.aspx

Stand Firm: The Air Force will work with Congress to “fine tune” its planned force structure changes, but will “stand firm in our strategic decisions” overall to pursue a substantive rebalancing of its Active, Guard, and Reserve elements, Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley said Monday. In his keynote address to AFA’s Air & Space Conference just outside Washington, D.C., Donley said it’s understandable that Congress was upset with USAF’s force structure changes in the Fiscal 2013 budget. This was “the first time lawmakers saw” the depth of changes necessary to achieve $487 billion in defense reductions over the next decade, even before a possible sequestration. But USAF’s decisions to “trade quality for size” and put “readiness abiove all” are the right ones, Donley said. With reduced resources, Air Force must organize, train, and equip “in a holistic way…we can’t do it in 50 separate packets,” he asserted. “We must move forward as one Air Force,” he added. Donley’s remarks contrast those of new Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh, who said during his August confirmation hearings that USAF would seek to accommodate Congress. Donley said USAF will indeed be smaller, but “we intend to be a superb Air Force at any size.”

They're standing about as firm as a cooked noodle. Truth is, there is nothing they can do about any of it. Congress has complete control of the budget. How's that for a really scary thought.

And don't forget "sequestration" is right around the corner (scheduled to take effect on Jan. 2nd I believe)? See http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/b ... ontrol-act and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5872/text

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 production rate analyzed