Forum: Program and politics

loke wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

C'mon guys. Have any of you ever flown military jets? As the Admiral says in the article, this is not unusual stuff. What is unusual is the degree of concurrency and the bills they can afford to pay or not pay in this budget climate.

Every U.S. TACAIR asset flying today has had structural issues -- ALL of them. .

What about non-US jets?

I have not (yet) heard reports of structural issues in the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon fighters.

Gripen passed 160,000 hours this summer, Typhoon passed 100,000 hours in January.

Count all the produced Typhoons and Gripens and flying hours, in that case flying hours flown per jet are not that impressive. So, why should they have structural problems aready?
Also, Swedish pilots don't fly that many hours as Nato pilots. Not that many pilots have flown more than 1000 hrs

F-16.net Sponsor

geogen wrote:

Thanks for the data sheet, m. The good news for RNLAF here, according to the latest info available, is that DoD and LM attempt to further chop said lot's $126m URF estimate to around $123m or so.

But as you note, there are other costs associated with procuring a fighter. (w/ usual exception of attrition jets). The initial spares being just one of those extras. Currently, the estimated PUC cost (Total procurement for US) for LRIP 4 is > $225m, which would ultimately be worked into a Partner's procurement prize depending on how each particular foreign partner accounts and reports for various sub-sets of line item costs (eg non-recurring/ancillary, test equipment, ILS and initial tech support).

And it's the PUC cost (the cost which dictates how many an air force can buy each year, given a set Procurement budget), which has unfortunately not dropped as fast as originally estimated compared to the simple URF cost. Very unfortunately too, the gap between expected and final PUC will likely expand significantly between FY14 and early FRP years as orders are substantially reduced. (I.e., Cost estimates are based on calculations for 3,000+ total production and 150+ per annum during FRP).

You are absolutely right these are not the only costs. These Dutch figures concerned only the basis figures as exact I could find. Also there are other costs as training pilots, training maintenance personal, pilot equipment, maintenance equipment, etc etc.

Not unimportant, also infrastrure costs will have to be made as well.
Also new loading equipment and etc. Although this is not seen as F35 costs in the Dutch budget,

spazsinbad wrote:

Will be very interesting to hear more from Adm. Venlet - probably to clarify what was in the AOL interview. We have not heard much from the good Admiral so far.

F-35 and the "Crackpots of Doom" December 02, 2011 by SMSgt Mac

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -doom.html

End of article quote so best read the entire thing first (with chart):

..."That is most interesting in the sense that the comment relates to what was 'budgeted' and not what was 'estimated'. Remember this chart? (It's in some of the linked material above as well.)

I suspect the budget shortfall has as much to do with how the costs have been amortized across fiscal years as it has to do with the fact that the contracts were negotiated for amounts less than even the JSF projected cost curve. Notice when this chart was made, the LRIP 4 jets were to cost approximately $128M in the end. Use the dollar figures provided in the AOL article: $110M plus $3-$5M for the retrofits. What is 'missing' from this equation? The LRIP 4 share of the weight reduction effort? [I cannot let an opportunity pass to also remind readers, once again, that even WITH all the "costs" being thrown about so carelessly, the totals to date STILL more closely track the lower internal program estimates than any other estimate and the B.S. CAPE estimates are still the outlier by far.]

This whole 'slow the ramp up' story IMHO is a narrative constructed to explain constraining the program more for reasons of immediate budgetary convenience than anything else. The program's successes this year may have brought about the need for the narrative.

"Cracks of Doom"? Heh. The 'beat' goes on......"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cUBlsEP0Ops/T ... LRIP+4.jpg

A quote from the article at the link "...smells of willful misdirection". Sure does. Will be interesting to see what budget actions emerge. Bet the AOL article is just a shaping action for decisions already made but yet to be revealed.

In the past, USG removals of buy numbers within the FYDP in order to pay bills of a given magnitude have amounted to swatting mosquitos with a sledgehammer. We'll see.

What the hell has all the money been spent on in development?

Geo, your numbers are off ..... again Wink

The graphic does indeed represent SAR2009 URF ($147.5) and not Total Flyaway ($202.6) for LRIP4. As far as PUC, the SAR2009 puts Total Program Cost at $2485 while FY2012 docs put it at $2358, or a drop in $12.7 million per fighter.

On the stopgap front: I see you missed the 2nd part of my linked article. While the 300 - 350 (they never mention 250, why do you?) may have been planned prior to any percieved F-35 stopgap, they clearly are looking at another 300 (for a total of 600) if the need arises. That sure sounds like a "Plan B" to me. Also, these SLEPed F-16s only cost $9.4 mil to upgrade. Since we are in a budget crunch it makes a lot more sense to SLEP 15 F-16s than to buy ONLY ONE F-15E+. You can almost pay to SLEP the ENTIRE 600 plan on what your 30 F-15E+s cost.

So what do you think would be more combat effective, 600 F-16s with all the latest (including AESA), or 30 F-15E+s?

So you don't miss the link, here it is.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8130691

The F-15SE costs 100 million dollars a copy. For the price of 35 F-15SE's you can upgrade 583 F-16's at six million dollars a piece. Which might be a good reason to go buy shares in Lockheed Martin as their are a heck of a lot F-16's out there.

That $100 mil for a F-15SE is only the URF. Throw in the complete PUC and it is closer to $200 mil.

Alloycowboy, sure, you can upgrade F-16's for $1m per jet if you wanted, but what matters is how robust and to what extent you wish to have your F-16s life extended and to what degree you want to have them upgraded. $6m per jet will not get both 10k hr robust life span plus a major upgrade, I'm sorry. For any credible 4.5 gen capability (approaching block 60 capabilities) along with robust 10k hr life span you'd probably be spending at least $40-50m per jet for the extra 4k hrs. Of course this would be risky and not a guaranteed strategy and by 2020 you'd need to further upgrade avionics and self-protection for the remaining 10 yr operational life at added cost.

Spud - a Plan B consisting of 300 additional upgraded and SLEP'd F-16s would act as a 2020s stopgap for reduced number of Block IV F-35s under FRP, not a stopgap for the rest of this decades substantial capability gap and reduced deterrence.

Further, not even necessary to bring up the SE here, an affordable interim F-15E+ can be later upgraded with blockers, CWB and LO applications for improved frontal RCS.

The policy choice should be common sense here... if AF needs to reduce F-35 orders over the indefinite term due to unexpected flaws (until they are determined to be affordable, per VADM Venlet's words), then the gap in near-term recapitalization should simply be picked up with more affordable F-15E+ and/or F-16+ instead. Pretty straight forward.

This is where 'Critics', a term which incidentally might possibly have been first identified with here on F16net fwiw, have been right. Simply, those being skeptical of the dubious assumptions and advertisements 2,3,4+ years ago had been calling then for prepared contingencies which could be more seamlessly implemented should they be required say, as they are now with supplemental needs.

Flat out, USAF's alternative 2020 TACAIR force structure allocated by 'critics' commencing in FY09, would be more capable, reliable and affordable than the official plan to date. Doh

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Dec 06, 2011 - 05:50 PM; edited 1 time in total

A stopgap is just that, to fill a gap. It is not intended to serve alongside the F-35 for the next 30 years. The USAF plan for 300-350 (up to 600) F-16s is only to add at least 2000 hours (or 8 years) to the airframes. By that time (through 2030), they plan on having any gap created by early F-35 slow-down filled with later F-35s.

Quote:

Maj. Gen. Jay Lindell, Air Force director of global power programs, said the airframe life of the F-16 would be increased from 8,000 to "at least" 10,000 hours. That would afford the Air Force eight more years of operations using the old aircraft, he said.

"We're looking at capability through the next decade, which would be through 2030," Lindell said.

Each plane would cost $9.4 million, he said, so the Air Force wants to get its money's worth.

Re:40-50 mil???

What are you basing that number on? Even new F/A-18 Super Hornets, with their larger radar, have a complete electronics (both CFE and GFE) cost of $6.8 million (for only 28 built in FY2012). Considering that the 300-600 kits will be much cheaper (thanks to economies of scale), have a much smaller radar, and are only upgrades, your estimate is WAY out of wack.

btw, As quoted above, there are only looking at at least 2k hours, not 4k.

There are two gaps going on, that's the point.

There's the widening near-term interim gap with every delay and further reduced production schedule and then there would be what one could call the the block IV and block IV FRP gap due to unexpected reductions under FRP. The additional 2k hrs of life planned will definitely help offset the 2024-2030 gap, no doubt, but does nothing extra to offset the interim 2012-2022 gap which could be the most critical span of risk, given the most uncertain time including emerging threats, capabilities and unknown intentions facing the US since the end of the Cold War (per quadrennial review). That's where interim supplemental 4.5 solutions should be responsibly procured using these soon to be unspent F-35A Procurement portions of Procurement budgets starting in FY13. Substantially reduced LRIP procurement should be made up with supplemental procurement in the interim... later block gaps under FRP can be filled with 2k extended F-16s, so be it.

If there's a consolation at least, it's that those arguing in the past that no viable stopgap, Plan B, or alternative exist are finally assessing things with more strategic clarity and reality. That's at least a step forward in prudent policymaking and a process hopefully expanded on going forward.

And $40-50mil would include Structural development and any durability fixes to ensure 10k hrs, but more extensive 'Block 60' type capabilities (including enhanced engine for durability or increased electrical generation, improved EW suite, improved data bus/computer upgrade, and built-in IRST and FLIR). Don't be surprised either to see the proposed $9.7m 'estimate' turn into $20m+ including integration before 3 years is up. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems highly optimistic.

Don’t know these are helpful figures, but gives some idea about Dutch F16 costs.
Although it’s not that really much comparable with US F16’s. Dutch F16’s are also older than US jets.
F16 A/B’s, later on known as F16 MLU

Flying 68 F16’s three years longer than originally planned:
68 F16’s: €300 million = $403million
Per F16: €4.41 million = $5.92 million

Average flying hours per F16: some +180 hours
Three years: 540 hours per F16 / Cost: $5.92 million per F16

Not that much known yet, but as stated in a letter: Frame extension, new wings, new barrels (vulkan). Air conditioning and …?

Take a look at the F-16 section of the USAF budget docs. There are many ongoing programs (as there are for any fighter program) that are being done to the F-16 fleet, including Falcon Star (major fleet-wide SLEP to 8k), computer upgrades, new & SLEP'd engines, etc. You can also see that the SLEP program we are talking about (with AESA & Avionics) is due to hit the fleet starting in the 2016 timeframe. This and the fact that any fighter ordered today would not get here any sooner than 2016 anyways shows that there is no gap that SLEP'd F-16s will not cover.

Dutch figures concerns life extension with three years. Upgrading with new engines, radar etc etc, is seen, in case of the Dutch, as not affordable.

I thought some of you might find this interesting. As it turns out Vice Admiral Venlet was involved in the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident.

http://www.apacheclips.com/media/35244/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_-_F-14_Tomcats_vs_Libyan_Su-22_Fitter/

alloycowboy wrote:

I thought some of you might find this interesting. As it turns out Vice Admiral Venlet was involved in the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident.

http://www.apacheclips.com/media/35244/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_-_F-14_Tomcats_vs_Libyan_Su-22_Fitter/

Very impressive, these pilots have to act in a split second

Forum: Program and politics

F-35 production must slow - 'Miscalculation' Adm Venlet Says