Forum: Program and politics

Sources, certainly. I can post a dozen links if you would....

In essence, the links quote DoD and Lockheed Martin people associated with the program. Even the senior millitary man involved with the program Admiral Enewold? I see cost overruns of up to $75 BILLION quoted over estimates made in just 2001. These are R&D cost increases coupled with suggested software and systems delays due to technical problems. These articles also suggest that some people are very nervous about fielding such a radically different and high-tech aircraft, ie getting it in service when a lot of it`s development and testing will not have been completed.... That approach is not new, bur other programs have run into difficulties when hardware is put into service "too early".

That in itself could lead to more cost increases, Admiral Enewold himself said that a design change required after aircraft and squadrons have been stood up is a worry and this has already happened with the F-22.....

Another thing that seems to be a great worry is the skyrocket-ing cost of both Titanium and Aluminium, with cost increases projected to be in the order of hundreds of %... Nothing LM or thr DoD can do about that...

Here are a couple of links, you decide....

http://www.sbac.co.uk/community/cms/con ... =10283&t=0

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rogram.htm Read the paragraph on 2004/5 and 6 developments.

If you need any more, just holler.

F-16.net Sponsor

I've heard that ther's many voices in the US that USAF should seriously consider purchase the newest version of F-16 WTF

The only thing official that I have heard is that in 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO) -- which is not exactly a friend of military procurement efforts -- readjusted the program cost estimates of the F-35 upwards to the order of about 19 billion over the lifetime of the program. They attributed the overwhelming fraction of this upward revision to revised inflation and dollar value estimates over the next 30 years. They pegged the unit cost in 2005 dollars steady at ~48 million for the "A" model to ~61 million for the "B" model. Lockmart claimed $45 million to $60 million in 2004. These numbers are consistent with a very modest cost increase from the original estimates of $28 million to $35 million made at the inception of the program in 1994 dollars. Given an average of 3.3% inflation, $28 milllion in 1994 dollars is equivalent to $38.7 million in 2004 dollars. And remember, 3.3% is general CPI inflation. Labor and materials inflation in the aerospace sector is typically higher than that indicated by CPI.

Thanks dwightlooi, I can understand that the "flyaway" cost of any F-35 model can be fixed for tier one two partners, that is quite normal. I can see the concern amongst certain parties that any R&D and "future engineering fixes" costs spiraling begs the question...Who is going to pay for it? These are the days of tight budgets and even tighter puckers!

Every major program like F-35 has, within the realms of possibility the ability to kick you in the butt when you least expect it. This aircraft is so new, with many untried ideas that the potential for things going wrong increase substantially. Just ask AIRBUS about the wiring problems on A380! Couple that with the fact that the bird will enter service perhaps before it really should to keep things moving, I see the potential at least, for more cost increase.

The question would be, who will pay for that if it happens....My guess would be the US taxpayer. The upwardly mobile cost of titanium and Al, seems to be a great worry for the program leaders. That factor will almost certainly affect other aircraft programs as well....

Forum: Program and politics

Politics and the F-35 debate...