The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

The F-22 is a deeply troubled program that was cancelled because the US probably couldn’t even build another 200.

Can you expand on this? Not making any judgement, but I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this is so.

Me too. If anything the recurring cost was showing it was getting easier (as anything does when you've started doing it on a regular basis).

 

[sferrin]

What? 6 (I think) of them have been in the UAE (or were recently) exercising with various nations.

That's very different to being operationally deployed.

It's been "operatonally deployed" several times to the Pacific. Why would you want to squander the finite airframe hours in a harsh environment where it's not needed anyway? Iran would justify it if we were going to war with them, but as a deterrent? What's already there would deter those who could be deterred.

 

[lantinian]

Deploying the F-22 anywhere in the middle east at the moment, would only spark speculations that the US is going forward with a military option against Iran, the only treat to justify such deployment, IMHO

 

[GTX]

The F-35 had a bad day in Congress today. I am really starting to believe the program is in serious trouble and I mean "no more funds" trouble. Many in Congress have "next generationitis" and like to look out in the future and say "Hey let's wait and just buy UCAVs or F/A-XXs or a 6th generation air force plane.

And what makes these people think any other replacement programs will be immune from issues afflicting the F-35?

It really pisses me off that there are so many people (with nothing to loose - including more than a few 'arm chair experts' here) that seem to have nothing better to do than 'throw stones' at projects such as this. That they are ignorant of the true facts (and seem to wish to remain so) is even more annoying! In another 30 odd yrs, I'm sure there will be people (possible even some of the current anti-F-35 cult) who will be arguing that nothing can replace the beloved F-35!

That said, I'm not concerned that the F-35 will be cancelled - there is too much invested now both in the USA and other countries. What's more, it is a superb aircraft with capabilities that will put it as a benchmark for others (including the much vaunted F-22). It would be nice though if the team could focus on the real job at hand rather than constantly dealing with the stones being thrown every day.

Sorry for the rant.

Regards,

Greg

 

[GTX]

Is there any evidence that the F-35 has poor rear hemisphere LO or is it just conjecture from a noted group of anti-F-35 polemicists? No one in the services who has worked on the F-35 is complaining about its ATA lethality and survivability. The project is not in trouble because it has to be redesigned for more ATA capability.

It doesn't necessarily NEED more A/A capability, but with the Raptor shortfall it'd make a lot of sense to have it. The F-35 force was intended to operate with the Raptor force. As it stands now, you could easily envision a scenario where there aren't Raptors around for support, so having that added A/A versatility would be a big plus. Rear hemisphere LO isn't horrible by any stretch, but it is the aspect that is the "worst". My point is that if you came up with the F-35 today, it'd be a bit different from what they came up with a while ago due to changing factors in the perceived threat and the force structure.

The argument that the "... F-35 force was intended to operate with the Raptor force..." only holds any water for the USAF - no other user planned on that, and yet none are concerned. The F-35 has been put through plenty of Air-Air scenario studies by different air forces around the world and has always come out looking good. It is only the anti-F-35 cult that constantly raises it as an issue.

Regards,

Greg

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 had a bad day in Congress today. I am really starting to believe the program is in serious trouble and I mean "no more funds" trouble. Many in Congress have "next generationitis" and like to look out in the future and say "Hey let's wait and just buy UCAVs or F/A-XXs or a 6th generation air force plane.

And what makes these people think any other replacement programs will be immune from issues afflicting the F-35?

It really pisses me off that there are so many people (with nothing to loose - including more than a few 'arm chair experts' here) that seem to have nothing better to do than 'throw stones' at projects such as this. That they are ignorant of the true facts (and seem to wish to remain so) is even more annoying! In another 30 odd yrs, I'm sure there will be people (possible even some of the current anti-F-35 cult) who will be arguing that nothing can replace the beloved F-35!

That said, I'm not concerned that the F-35 will be cancelled - there is too much invested now both in the USA and other countries. What's more, it is a superb aircraft with capabilities that will put it as a benchmark for others (including the much vaunted F-22). It would be nice though if the team could focus on the real job at hand rather than constantly dealing with the stones being thrown every day.

Sorry for the rant.

Regards,

Greg

Keep in mind there are certain parties who have an interest in seeing it killed regardless of how good it is, namely anybody involved with the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, or Super Hornet programs.

From here:

http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/page/2/

"Boeing could stand the most to gain, and has a particular interest in killing the F-35C, the tailhook version which competes for the Navy’s funding with the F/A-18E/F—an airplane for which the Navy has shown increased affection of late. Close behind though would stand Saab, Dassault, and EADS (as the one shareholder in Eurofighter GmbH with little interest in the JSF program). These three European companies have an interest in killing the F-35A, the conventional land-based version, as Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, Turkey, and Australia would all open up as marketing targets (Belgium and even Portugal might eventually make that list as well). Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Alenia are perhaps of split opinions, in that all are major subcontractors to Lockheed Martin for the F-35, but that each has interests in the X-47B or Eurofighter programs, which would stand to gain from the F-35’s loss. In short, most of the combat aircraft industry would arguably like to kill this thing, and the rest is at best dispassionate. "

The DEW Line (Flight Global's blog- a European magazine) was practically gushing over the piece. Not to be outdone Bill Sweetman (coincidently, also European) over on the Ares blog has no less than three anti-F-35 articles on the front page alone, including one comparing the F-35s exhaust to a JP233 antirunway munition. Ares frequently cites another rabid anti-F-35 blog "Worldwide War Pigs" (which is often in cahoots with yet another anti-F-35 group, namely Carlo Kopp's Air Power Australia.) Given all the back and forth and mutual coverage one can't help but wonder if there's a coordinated effort at play. Quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. . .

 

[GTX]

I don't have a problem with competitors positions/arguments - these are quite reasonable and acceptable. What isn't is those with nothing to gain other than a 'notch on their belt.'

Regards,

Greg

 

[sferrin]

I don't have a problem with competitors positions/arguments - these are quite reasonable and acceptable. What isn't is those with nothing to gain other than a 'notch on their belt.'

Regards,

Greg

I don't have a problem with competitors saying whatever either. Those who are suppose to be objective though. . .well, it'd be nice to see them be so.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Can you expand on this? Not making any judgement, but I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this is so.

The design of the F-22 means that it consumes certain things to operate that would be needed to build more. The relationship between the supply and the rate needed to sustain the current fleet is such that it would be very difficult to build more while sustaining the first 180. The alternative is not a block upgrade but a major redesign which would of course put the F-22 back into the development, start up production cycle. If I’m sounding obtuse that is because I have to. When you hear people talking about how the F-35 was designed to be cheaper to sustain and operate that pre-existing stealth aircraft they should be taken very seriously.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It's been "operatonally deployed" several times to the Pacific. Why would you want to squander the finite airframe hours in a harsh environment where it's not needed anyway? Iran would justify it if we were going to war with them, but as a deterrent? What's already there would deter those who could be deterred.

No it hasn’t. Operational deployment is something like being assigned to OIF, OEF or a carrier deployment. Visiting some bases around the world and playing wargames is not operational deployment. The F-22 still can’t talk secure to anything other than another F-22 and still has lots of maintainability issues. As such its not something that is really useable at the moment for anything other than high stakes, high intensity warfare.

As to the hypothetical geostrategic reasoning that’s just nonsense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Given all the back and forth and mutual coverage one can't help but wonder if there's a coordinated effort at play. Quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. . .

That would be to assume that the various commentators you mention have a stake in the business development strategies of non F-35 companies. They don’t.

No doubt Boeing, EADS, Dassault and Saab (BAES is one of the F-35’s big three) would like to see deliveries for the F-35 curtailed or delayed because that could mean more sales of their existing products. But realistically they have to appreciate that the project is no where near the danger the commentators and polemicists are trying to make out it is or that their products can compete with it. Most of their marketing effort is going to countries that will not be able to get F-35s or at least not for the next ~15 years or need gap fillers.

The F-35 is still the biggest game in town and the self-supporting harping on about it is not likely to stop until it gets its ‘Harrier Moment’ to shoot down a bunch of BANDITS.

 

[Creative]

I just noticed the Senate Armed Services Committee is talking about the JSF program right now. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

 

[sferrin]

As to the hypothetical geostrategic reasoning that’s just nonsense.

Okay then, why would F-22s deter Iran if what's already there wouldn't?

 

[Vpanoptes]

Looks like the Danes may be better at reading the goat entrails of this project: (from AWST today)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aed128b0f-74e2-4a36-be32-184ca2060ce4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Gotta wonder who (if anyone) is next?

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

O f course the bigger question, why is Denmark bothering to spend the money on any new 'hi-tech' military hardware?
Realistically speaking why do they need them?

 

[Sundog]

O f course the bigger question, why is Denmark bothering to spend the money on any new 'hi-tech' military hardware?
Realistically speaking why do they need them?

Because their F-16 airframes are wearing out. Or are you asking why they need an Air Force at all?

 

[Vpanoptes]

O f course the bigger question, why is Denmark bothering to spend the money on any new 'hi-tech' military hardware?
Realistically speaking why do they need them?

Because their F-16 airframes are wearing out. Or are you asking why they need an Air Force at all?

The reasons for Danish participation in the F-35 program are undoubtedly several, including NATO committments, a desire for commonality with other fighter forces, a piece of the economic pie from the program, etc. However, given the status of the program with spiraling costs, IOC slippage, performance issues and other concerns, the Danes have obviously decided to take a very hard look at their real/pragmatic vs. perceived/nice to have defense needs. Few would question the need for an Air Force, but given the current and likely future economic conditions and outlook (not just for Denmark but a lot of other countries) I would imagine a fair number of the other JSF partners are thinking along similar lines. Should our current economic malaise (haven't heard that term in a while, eh?) persist for another year or two (seems likely) and the bad news about the F-35 continue (also seems likely) then that slippery slope towards major program re-structuring draws ever closer. By then (if not already) LM will and should probably be very, very nervous, given the ineptitude that seems to have plagued this program for a long while - too long IMHO.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

. By then (if not already) LM will and should probably be very, very nervous, given the ineptitude that seems to have plagued this program for a long while - too long IMHO.

That’s a staggering bunch of assumptions (but quite mild in terms of the assumption ladden F-35 'debate'). How about this one: It’s cheaper. It’s cheaper for the Danes to buy Super Hornets now rather than keep their F-16s flying for a few more years and then buy the more expensive F-35s. Considering the Danes have been happy to sell of their EH-101s fresh from the factory and have been driving down expenditure in defence for years and only maintain a defence force for sovereignty and contributions to NATO missions I would be more inclined to follow the money rather than assume a loss of confidence in F-35.

 

[Sundog]

Regarding the cost over runs of the F-35, how much of it is due to mission creep? I remember originally it was to use offboard sensors for info collection, to keep the systems on board minimal, but after it went from a demo to a production contract, the military kept dumping more and more on board capabilities into it. I always found it funny that they kept adding these technologies in and the price never changing. So I was wondering if we know how much of the cost is because of that.

There are also reports that LM intentionally underbid their submission to win the contract. If true, I wonder what would have happened during the down select, since Boeing couldn't perform the STOVL portion of the contract, at least not in demo, but LM's submission would be that much more expensive.

 

[lancer21]

IMHO , it was very interesting the Senate Comittee debate about the F-35 the other day ...they are at least not happy with Lockheed from what they say ...i dont see LM looking too good in the next generation fighter competition ( or whatever next competition in US they will get )

Lots of peoples are much more informed over the subject than i am , but imo , the whole concept of a plane doing 3 entirely different jobs AND being affordable AND have a very high degree of commonality is flawed...its too complicated and COSTLY( the oposite of the initial intentions), It can be done offcourse , but we all see where the F-35 price is going whit this "it can be done"...offcourse lack of money is the last things the americans should complain about , but haveing this thing more than doubling its price ( where are the times when the price tag was 38 mil for a CTOL and 50 mil for a CV )...sure raised some eyebrows even in Washington.

Wouldnt have it been less costly to get the JSF F-35 for USAF and USN, i would think its easier to get a landplane adapted for naval , while the USMC ( and the brits , and whoever else needs the STOVL version ), to get another aircraft , purposely designed for the job , with the constructor focused on that plane with those specific requirements , and not chase 3 rabbits?

I think this F-35B complicated all this programme , even if paradoxically , its the most advanced with respect to flight testing & developement so far! I find it hard to belive tho how can they say that the F-35B will get IOC in 2012, which is the most complex version ( right ?), while the F-35A and C no sooner than 2016? i dont get it ...unless the F-35B gets the most priority???

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The cost increase in the F-35 is not caused by mission creep but by a long drawn out development program allowing for plenty of opportunities for cost growth by the contractor in a competition free environment. The specification of capability for the SDD F-35 has not changed in 10 years – there have been some more ideas of developing the system after SDD but none of this is funded by the current program. One problem causing this is ending competition so early in development schedules. If down select between Boeing and Lockheed didn’t happen until half way through SDD there would be a lot more pressure to compete and keep cost down.

The average cost growth in US DoD development projects is 25% and Nunn-McMurdy kicks in at 15%! People who are running around saying it’s the end of the F-35 and we need to develop the F-16XL and other such nonsense are just making fools of themselves. There is a lot of smoke and noise at the moment but the project is still moving along and delivering the right product.

The F-35B is to enter USMC squadron service at only Block II capability with only basic air to air and air to ground missions. The other versions will all be at Block III before flying in operational squadrons.

 

[CammNut]

Photos and videos of first STOVL F-35B hover and STO at Pax River today (March 17).First verticla landing expected tomorrow (Thursday 18th).

Photos at:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aceead79c-a43c-4164-9ca3-f0d1ee07d4d8&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Videos at:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a452ba4aa-3146-458d-90ec-10742526a865&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

[fightingirish]

Videos of the vertical landing today:
Link: http://www.youtube.com/user/LockheedMartinVideos

 

[Creative]

Thank you for pointing out that vid of this amazing aircraft.

 

[Thorvic]

Thank you for pointing out that vid of this amazing aircraft.

Nice to see it Vertically land, interesting press release from GT (test pilot) about they individually testing the STOVL flight profile and will now styart to bring it all together to test the limits and increase the weight to operational levels. That's when it gets interesting as that's where the F-35B will have to prove itself of being capable in order to meet the operational requirements. GT also mentioned the unexpected lack of ground effect when doing the landing which took them by surprise as they had predicted some and planned for it. I don't think they quite like that as now they will have to test to see if its does occur or not !

Still a shame they prefer the short take off, whilst being much more practical and in line with expected usage, its still impressive to see a Harrier do vertical take off, maneuver and land again, even if its really just for the airshow crowds these days.

 

[Sundog]

Thank you for pointing out that vid of this amazing aircraft.

Nice to see it Vertically land, interesting press release from GT (test pilot) about they individually testing the STOVL flight profile and will now styart to bring it all together to test the limits and increase the weight to operational levels. That's when it gets interesting as that's where the F-35B will have to prove itself of being capable in order to meet the operational requirements. GT also mentioned the unexpected lack of ground effect when doing the landing which took them by surprise as they had predicted some and planned for it. I don't think they quite like that as now they will have to test to see if its does occur or not !

Still a shame they prefer the short take off, whilst being much more practical and in line with expected usage, its still impressive to see a Harrier do vertical take off, maneuver and land again, even if its really just for the airshow crowds these days.

For the record, the F-35 can take off vertically. It just doesn't make operational sense to do so, other than if your runways are completely bombed out. I haven't any doubt that sometime during testing, they will execute a vertical take-off, but it isn't really what they need "tested" right now.

 

[bobbymike]

From insidedefense.com:

JSF Program Costs Soar to $329 Billion
DefenseAlert, March 19, 2010 -- The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $329 billion and the unit cost to $135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 percent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released today.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wasn't the next batch of F-22's going to cost less then this per plane?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Might as well have gone with the F-22 if it really does cost more.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From insidedefense.com:

JSF Program Costs Soar to $329 Billion
DefenseAlert, March 19, 2010 -- The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $329 billion and the unit cost to $135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 percent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released today.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wasn't the next batch of F-22's going to cost less then this per plane?

The only report released today on the JSF was by the GAO which isn't the Pentagon. Their cost estimates are predictions based on a methodology that makes worst case seem like a late spring day.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-382

The F-35 still remains very cost effective compared to the F-22 because it is cheaper, does more and can actually be built and sustained in the numbers needed.

 

[bobbymike]

From insidedefense.com:

JSF Program Costs Soar to $329 Billion
DefenseAlert, March 19, 2010 -- The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $329 billion and the unit cost to $135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 percent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released today.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wasn't the next batch of F-22's going to cost less then this per plane?

The only report released today on the JSF was by the GAO which isn't the Pentagon. Their cost estimates are predictions based on a methodology that makes worst case seem like a late spring day.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-382

The F-35 still remains very cost effective compared to the F-22 because it is cheaper, does more and can actually be built and sustained in the numbers needed.

Air Force Association also calls it a Pentagon document (see attachment):

How Much for an F-35?: The Pentagon on March 19 released new unit cost estimates for the F-35 strike fighter, indicating that the program had increased by 57 to 89 percent over its established baseline. As we reported earlier, Pentagon acquisition chief Ash Carter had told the Senate Armed Services that the F-35 would break Nunn-McCurdy cost-monitoring thresholds. Anything over a 50 percent increase above the baseline, per Nunn-McCurdy, requires program recertification. Per the just-released cost estimates, in then-year dollars, which some consider a more accurate rendering, each F-35 will cost between $114 million and $135 million. The Pentagon had expected to buy 2,852 fighters in the original baseline program; the new estimates are based on 2,443 aircraft.

 

[GTX]

From insidedefense.com:

JSF Program Costs Soar to $329 Billion
DefenseAlert, March 19, 2010 -- The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $329 billion and the unit cost to $135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 percent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released today.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wasn't the next batch of F-22's going to cost less then this per plane?

I know for a fact that Australia has paid less than this for its first batch of fourteen F-35s.

I would have thought we would be past using unit pricing for initial batches of aircraft as a basis for the average cost during full up production by now.

Might as well have gone with the F-22 if it really does cost more.

Comparing the cost of the F-22 at the end of its production to the F-35 at the start is ridiculous. Besides, why would you want something with less capability across the spectrum?

Finally, for anyone concerned about price, I can assure you the pressure on Lockheed and then passed down the supply chain to reduce cost is immense - a price that will win a production order this year will not win one next year and so on.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Steve Pace]

From insidedefense.com:

JSF Program Costs Soar to $329 Billion
DefenseAlert, March 19, 2010 -- The Joint Strike Fighter program's total procurement cost has soared to $329 billion and the unit cost to $135 million, reflecting a nearly 90 percent jump in the price of each F-35 since 2001, according to a Pentagon report released today.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wasn't the next batch of F-22's going to cost less then this per plane?

I'm tired of the Northrop Grumman's and Lockheed Martin's milking the American taxpayer's wallets with $2 billion B-2s and $800 million F-22s. Boeing has demonstrated great constraint with its rapid, on time, on budget F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler programs.

I know for a fact that Australia has paid less than this for its first batch of fourteen F-35s.

I would have thought we would be past using unit pricing for initial batches of aircraft as a basis for the average cost during full up production by now.

Might as well have gone with the F-22 if it really does cost more.

Comparing the cost of the F-22 at the end of its production to the F-35 at the start is ridiculous. Besides, why would you want something with less capability across the spectrum?

Finally, for anyone concerned about price, I can assure you the pressure on Lockheed and then passed down the supply chain to reduce cost is immense - a price that will win a production order this year will not win one next year and so on.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm tired of the Northrop Grumman's and Lockheed Martin's milking the American taxpayer's wallets with $2 billion B-2s and $800 million F-22s. Boeing has demonstrated great constraint with its rapid, on time, on budget F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler programs.

If only the world was as simple as that. B-2, F-22 and F-35 all cost a whole lot more than E/F because they were programs that developed a lot more technology. Its not Boeing (or McAir who actually developed the E/F pre merger) that showed constraint but the US Navy. They only brought the “constrained” E/F project because they had blown billons on the unconstrained A-12 and it was Super Hornet or a similar costing Super Tomcat or nothing.

Further if the USG keeps on launching multi billion development contracts and then backs it up with orders for 15-25% of the originally planned number of units then of course they are going to have outrageous total unit costs. Each B-2 ‘only’ cost $500 million to build its just they had to factor in $35 billion of development costs across only 20 aircraft for a total unit cost of $2 billion.

If a full production run of 120 B-2s was built the total unit cost would have only been $750 million. The overall difference in total project cost between building 120 B-2s or 20 B-2s is about half. $90 billion for 120 and $45 billion for 20. Of course the USG didn’t think they had that extra $50 billion. Would have been a much better use of the F-22 funding in my opinion but whats done is done. The lesson to be learnt is to not seek false savings by crippling your production run. Also to try and judge these complex programs with a bit more data and analysis then “by gumit”.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The only report released today on the JSF was by the GAO which isn't the Pentagon. Their cost estimates are predictions based on a methodology that makes worst case seem like a late spring day.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-382

The F-35 still remains very cost effective compared to the F-22 because it is cheaper, does more and can actually be built and sustained in the numbers needed.

Who is to say the F-22 couldn't have been built and sustained in the numbers needed? In fact if Gates didn't act as if the aircraft murdered his family it probably would have been. (Or were you referring to the F-22 doing the role of the F-15 and F-16? I'll agree that would be impossible.)

As far as being less capable across the spectrum, this is true in regards to air-to-ground missions, but I don't think that removes the need for more specialized aircraft. Personally I think we should have continued F-22 production despite the progress of the F-35, and develop/upgrade both aircraft concurrently.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Who is to say the F-22 couldn't have been built and sustained in the numbers needed? In fact if Gates didn't act as if the aircraft murdered his family it probably would have been. (Or were you referring to the F-22 doing the role of the F-15 and F-16? I'll agree that would be impossible.)

As far as being less capable across the spectrum, this is true in regards to air-to-ground missions, but I don't think that removes the need for more specialized aircraft. Personally I think we should have continued F-22 production despite the progress of the F-35, and develop/upgrade both aircraft concurrently.

If you had bothered to read this thread you wouldn’t have to ask that question. I don’t know what you would have to do so you wouldn’t shoot off your mouth at any opportunity to share your baseless opinion about Sec. Gates and force structure planning.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

If you had bothered to read this thread you wouldn’t have to ask that question. I don’t know what you would have to do so you wouldn’t shoot off your mouth at any opportunity to share your baseless opinion about Sec. Gates and force structure planning.

If I had read the thread? You mean your idea that we couldn't have built 200 more F-22A due to some kind of lack of materials? That because the earlier production aircraft don't have all the planned systems further development was a no-go? The only "material" that was seriously lacking was funding, and while it clearly isn't possible to build the F-22 in the numbers to replace the F-16, not to mention the seperate issue of CV and STOVL aircraft, we could certainly build and operate more than 187 of them. Maintainence problems with the F-22A weren't nearly as bad as the media portrayed.

I have nothing against Def Sec. Gates as an individual but his views regarding force structure planning are certainly questionable, and not just with the USAF. The "promise" of a one-airframe does all solution hasn't exactly worked out in the past.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The only "material" that was seriously lacking was funding,

Ahh a program insider... Somehow I find it hard to understand how a program that was funded to the tune of 63.8 billion dollars can be considered lacking in funding!

 

[TomS]

The only report released today on the JSF was by the GAO which isn't the Pentagon. Their cost estimates are predictions based on a methodology that makes worst case seem like a late spring day.

I'm not especially interested in getting involved in the F-35 pro/con argument, but I would like to clarify the reports people are talking about. DoD actually did issue a report on 18 March about the F-35 cost escalation, separate and distinct from the GAO report. It's a brief one-page report called a Unit Cost Report which is done as part of the Selected Acquisition Report process mandated under Nunn-McCurdy (SARs are usually done annually for major acquisition programs -- especially large programs are updated quarterly). I've attached the F-35 UCR here, for posterity.

Hope that helps clear up one bit of confusion. Now you folks can go back to yelling at each other. Carry on.

 

[bobbymike]

TomS - yes my post #166 already has this document attachment. Issue solved 3 days ago

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would have thought we would be past using unit pricing for initial batches of aircraft as a basis for the average cost during full up production by now.Regards,

The cost rise in F-35 enables a lot of unfair accounting methods to be brought into place by its critics. For example the cut in the number of platforms results in spreading development cost over less production units. This raises the average procurement unit cost by 17%. So actuall cost overruns are now down to +40-72%. Then the cost overrun should be averaged on a per yearly rate. Which per year of SDD is +4-7.2%. Now a cost growth (inflation adjusted) of 4-7% per annum is not so terrible.