F-22 production ends at 187, F-35 production accelerated

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So it seems F-22 production will end at 187 units.

Is this the right decision?

 

[Matej]

It means that the plans to build another two dozens of F-22 for the USAF and a few others for the export are definitely cancelled?

 

[Skybolt]

mmmm, it depends from what will happen in the Far East and with Iran, I think.

 

[Matej]

A top Pentagon official has informed the US Congress that Syria is set to purchase Russia’s advanced Mig-31 fighter jet, a move which Jerusalem hopes to counter by obtaining the superior F-22 stealth fighter.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Air Force has expressed renewed interest in buying the Lockheed Martin built F-22 “fifth generation” fighter, which so far has only been sold to the US military. Congress will be discussing the F-22 next month, and there is widespread speculation that the ban on selling the aircraft abroad will be lifted, as the production line for the aircraft is in danger of shutting down.

http://www.icej.org/article/israel_syria_seek_next_generation_aircraft

 

[V8Interceptor]

From what I've read the new administration has upheld the previous one's position that the Raptor will not be sold to any other nation...I would bet that LockMart will lobby very, very hard to get that changed but my money is that they won't prevail...

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

They're going to shut down production? Or just not order any more?

 

[lantinian]

Basically they will build 4 more additional Raptors to those already planned and thats it. The production line is has some 30,000+ workers now and will gradually decrease over the next 2-3 years.

Meanwhile the F-35 testing will accelerate as some of the aircraft initially planned for production in 2009 will now be used for testing. So any workers loosing jobs in the F-22 program will likely be able to find a place in the much larger F-35 program.

Still, it will be interesting to see how much support did F-22 have in congress when this plan gets the vote.

 

[GTX]

People can read the transcript of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' briefing here to see exactly what was included - it might help stop rumours/misconceptions.

First of all, remember that this is only the start of the budgetary process - it is what the administration is planning (or asking for if you like). Once it gets out the other end, the result will be different. Though the F-22 production will still probably be capped - there may be a couple more, but nothing like what some would dream of.

They're going to shut down production? Or just not order any more?

Apart from the four extra mentioned, they are planning to stop production at 187 total - there may be a few more added in (perhaps one to replace the recent loss) but not a great deal.

mmmm, it depends from what will happen in the Far East and with Iran, I think.

Insert Quote
Quote
A top Pentagon official has informed the US Congress that Syria is set to purchase Russia’s advanced Mig-31 fighter jet, a move which Jerusalem hopes to counter by obtaining the superior F-22 stealth fighter.


Quote
Meanwhile, the Israeli Air Force has expressed renewed interest in buying the Lockheed Martin built F-22 “fifth generation” fighter, which so far has only been sold to the US military. Congress will be discussing the F-22 next month, and there is widespread speculation that the ban on selling the aircraft abroad will be lifted, as the production line for the aircraft is in danger of shutting down.

http://www.icej.org/article/israel_syria_seek_next_generation_aircraft

I doubt these will have any impact on the decision - as it is they will have 180 odd F-22s + f-35s + all the legacy platforms + allies so I doubt a few MiG-31s (if it does eventuate) or whatever Iran has will sway the decision. In fact, even China wouldn't change things IMHO.

From what I've read the new administration has upheld the previous one's position that the Raptor will not be sold to any other nation...I would bet that LockMart will lobby very, very hard to get that changed but my money is that they won't prevail...

I honestly don't think that Lockheed Martin would be too worried - they are still winning with the F-35 which will be exported far and wide and to far more customers than the F-22 ever could have.

Also, the law preventing the export of F-22s isn't exactly the position of either the Bush or Obama administrations - it is actually an ammendment (the Obey Ammendment - named after the proposer Congressman David R. Obey) to the 1998 Department of Defense appropriations legislation.

I hope this is useful.

Regards,

Greg

 

[GTX]

It is interesting that the F-22 is getting all the focus from this. Some of the other plans are significant too, such as:

We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.

Hopefully the LCS will overcome its initial difficulties.

7. To replace the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet, we will maintain the KC-X aerial re-fueling tanker schedule and funding, with the intent to solicit bids this summer.

The never-ending story is to get another chapter?

Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.

I guess the HH-47 won't see the light of day now, or will it perhaps but in a joint service format?

We will cancel the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft. We will keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort. The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable.

Not unexpected, but at least it stays alive as a research program.

Fifth, in this request, we will include funds to complete the buy of two navy destroyers in FY10. These plans depend on being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.
If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51. If the department is left to pursue this alternative, it would unfortunately reduce our overall procurement of ships and cut workload in both shipyards.

No comment.

Sixth, and finally, we will significantly restructure the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

It will be interesting to see what results from this.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

• In FY10, we will begin the replacement program for the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine program.

Cool, a new SSBN to counter Russia's new one. I wonder if we've got a new SLBM in the works that'll be fitted to it.

• We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.

There goes B-3.<_<

• We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement

Didn't this thing just get started and with a working prototype?

• We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.

Weren't they already on a 5 year build cycle?

4. To better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) programs.

Smart choice there, go with what you know works. Too bad he didn't apply that to other programs.

 

[CFE]

With the price of the F-35 ballooning, the F-22 seems like a better buy for the AF. So when the AF buys its lot of F-35A's, it's getting a lower top speed, no supercruise, less stealth, and less maneuverability. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

 

[r16]

barring some interesting event like a comet striking earth , we will all be here when the F-35 is cancelled at some minor production number to allow more unmanned combat equipment , which will be far cheaper , at least on paper . It is a good thing we still have Phantoms . America , eat your heart out .

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With the price of the F-35 ballooning, the F-22 seems like a better buy for the AF. So when the AF buys its lot of F-35A's, it's getting a lower top speed, no supercruise, less stealth, and less maneuverability. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

There is no actual evidence to support the claim that F-35 cost is ballooning. Just a lot of conjecture based on comparisons to projects that happened 10-20 years ago without today's technology. While there may be sticker price cost rises they are due to INFLATION and not particularly relevant to a cost comparison test. Cost of the F-35 is actually been driven down. Even in LRIP they are achieving 3-5% savings each year on predicted cost. It will be far more affordable than the F-22 and not need the kind of costly upgrades the F-22 will demand to stay relevant.

The F-35 could cruise in still air at 200 knots and still be a better solution than the F-22 as long as the overall capability of the weapon system is better. Simply pointing to a few kinematic differences and believing its not as good is completely wrong in this day and age.

There aren't many air force professionals losing sleep over the F-35 project, its a damn shame there are so many propagandaists out there losing sleep over the F-22...

 

[Skybolt]

New SSBN: a couple of years ago the Navy asked the industry for ideas on a new SLBM having a shorter (think like an IRBM) range than the Trident II. This could mean a smaller sub, more missile per sub, both. There are rumours of a switchable payload SLBM (nuclear/conventional), with a RV CAV-like. On DTIC appeared a couple of reports on concepts like this. Wil post.
Carriers: this is the classic decision made for short-term political motives, "after 2040 ?". In 2012 (even earlier, there is a Congress election in Nov. 2010) a new president will again revert the decision. After 2040 China will be a real challenge, barring catastrophic state failure.

 

[TomS]

re SSBNs: the USN has already announced development of a common missile compartment for use in both US and UK follow-on SSBNs.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/

Based on British statements about this project and its future SSBNs, it's clear that the CMC will be compatible with Tredent and any successor SLBM.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090330/text/90330w0015.htm

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Still, I'm surprised so few F-22's were built. I figured at least 220 to 250 of them would have been built.

Regarding the F-35 weapon's system, it's kind of funny, you'd think they'd just fit the F-22 with that infrared/optical system that the JSF had and they'd have the high-speed performance and the JSF's weapon systems too which sounds like a win-win.


Kendra

 

[GTX]

There is no actual evidence to support the claim that F-35 cost is ballooning. Just a lot of conjecture based on comparisons to projects that happened 10-20 years ago without today's technology. While there may be sticker price cost rises they are due to INFLATION and not particularly relevant to a cost comparison test. Cost of the F-35 is actually been driven down. Even in LRIP they are achieving 3-5% savings each year on predicted cost. It will be far more affordable than the F-22 and not need the kind of costly upgrades the F-22 will demand to stay relevant.

I agree completely - trust me, the companies supplying components etc to the f-35 are under a LOT of pressure to keep prices down and to even reduce them in the future (a price that may be accepted for the initial LRIPs will need to be lower to win the FRP contracts!).

the recent 200USD/copy price referred to by the Israeli's was to get some very early aircraft. the actaul unit cost (not including the fill logistics etc package) will be much, much lower. Remember also that the F-35 is the first program where price has been a 'design criteria' from the start. Note that this doesn't mean that everything is designed/selected only on price, but rather unnecessary price increases are not tolerated.

Regards,

Greg

 

[GTX]

Still, I'm surprised so few F-22's were built. I figured at least 220 to 250 of them would have been built.

Regarding the F-35 weapon's system, it's kind of funny, you'd think they'd just fit the F-22 with that infrared/optical system that the JSF had and they'd have the high-speed performance and the JSF's weapon systems too which sounds like a win-win.


Kendra

As I think Abraham Gubler may have already said elsewhere, the backfitting of equipment to the F-22 isn't such a simple matter. Besides high speed performance isn't everything.

Regards,

Greg

 

[GTX]

barring some interesting event like a comet striking earth , we will all be here when the F-35 is cancelled at some minor production number to allow more unmanned combat equipment , which will be far cheaper , at least on paper . It is a good thing we still have Phantoms . America , eat your heart out .

Maybe, but there is still a lot of backlash against an all UAS/UCAS force and I think you will still see the f-35 production top out close to 5000 by the time the last one rolls off the production lines - who knows it may even be uninhabited. I personnally don't have a problem with such a thing though.

regards,

Greg

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

GTX,

As I think Abraham Gubler may have already said elsewhere, the backfitting of equipment to the F-22 isn't such a simple matter.

Why not?


KJ Lesnick

 

[LowObservable]

Look at the actual "accelerated" numbers for F-35 production, including exports; now superimpose them on what the official test schedule (which neither NavAir nor the Joint Estimating Team believe) looks like; and consider how much testing will have been done at the point where the configuration for each successive LRIP batch has to be frozen.

Essentially, a lot was already being bet on F-35 performing (from now on) far better than any previous program, even though its performance to date has been average at best; now, a lot more is being bet, and the alternatives are being closed out earlier.

For example: if you look at the plan in late 2001, IIRC, F-35 should have been through DT by the time the F-22 and Super Hornet lines started to shut down.

I would also point out that, back then, nobody was saying how modeling and simulation were going to radically change the role of flight test. In fact, nobody heard that line at all until people started asking how come they'd only flown 100 sorties in two and a quarter years.

 

[flateric]

what happens when one idiot tries to come for help

http://gawker.com/5204575/shill-general-says-only-cancelled-superfighter-can-stop-pirates?skyline=true&s=x

Fox's Pirate-Killing Jet Swindle
By Ryan Tate, 9:38 PM on Wed Apr 8 2009

Fox News analyst Thomas McInerney bizarrely twisted today's pirate attack to cheerlead for a pricey fighter the Obama administration plans to cancel. Is that because he's been paid by a contractor on the plane?

McInerney is no stranger to shilling. Last year, the New York Times busted the retired lieutenant general for acting as an on-air puppet to George W. Bush's Department of Defense, helping promote war in Iraq. "Good work — we will use it," the general wrote the Pentagon after swallowing a fresh batch of talking points.

McInerney "sits on the boards of several military contractors," the Times wrote. Those are typically well-paid positions.

The talking head has worked as a consultant to Northrop Grumman. Northrop is a major contractor on the F-22 Raptor, a fighter slashed from the Pentagon's new budget proposal. Contractors are already organizing a fight in Congress.

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that McInerney turned up on Fox today to say the Raptor, a fighter designed to cruise a supersonic speeds and shoot down other airplanes, is ideal for escorting U.S. ships and fighting off the hot military enemy of the moment, bands of pirates — especially if you pair it with Northrop's spy drone (scandalously over budget) and an in-flight refueling tanker (like the Northrop model McInerney consulted on).

See the clip above, found by Mike Byhoff in our video department (and mentioned in a previous post).

It doesn't take an Air Force general to see how bizarre McInerney's military reasoning is. The analyst told Fox the F-22, at $146 million each, would be great against pirates due to its fast "reaction time" and 20 milimeter cannon.

He neglected to mention virtually every U.S. fighter made in the last 30 years carries such a cannon (usually the six-barrel M-61 Vulcan), including the F/A-18 Hornet already in use by the U.S. Navy (pictured left). He also fails to mention that, no matter how fast the F-22 might be, it can't be based off an aircraft carrier. So its reaction time could never be as good (from a land base on, say, the Arabian Peninsula) as a Hornet or other existing Navy jet floating in the waters nearest the pirates.

Finally, McInerney fails to mention that, though capable of ground attack, the F-22 is optimized for air-to-air operations, i.e., shooting down other fighters.

The idea of going after hostage-taking pirates with an advanced fighter jet and a high-altitude drone is absurd on its face. Prior to intercepting its prey, a pirate ship could be taken with anything from a cheap, Hellfire-missile-equipped Predator (for small ships) to an inexpensive helicopter to almost any existing fighter plane. Once hostages are involved, there's very a little any attack aircraft could do, short of dropping in some commandos.

But military realism need not matter to either Fox or its shill general. McInerney's fantasy not only helps his benefactors — we need the Raptor to keep away evil pirates, you see — it also no doubt holds a certain sexy Top Gun appeal to many Fox News viewers. It's a win-win, at least until more people start calling Fox on its weapons-lobby footsie.

 

[lantinian]

Well, Gates Speech was a RECOMENDATION, balancing military needs with budget. This is by no means a final decision and I suspect it will change. For the wrong reason or not, there is a substantial lobbying effort in favor of the F-22. And since parts for it come from 47 states, I suspect the lobbying will affect republicans and democrats alike.
It may happen that in order to pass this military budget, the white house will need to add some 20+ Raptors or it will just not get the vote.

If you ask me, there isn't a better time to unveil the PAKFA than now as far as keeping the F-22 in production.

 

[flateric]

that's why they are not in a hurry at KNAAPO, I suspect=)

 

[donnage99]

Northrop Grumman is not a major contractor of the f-22. A radar isn't that much to be called a major contractor. Northrop benefits more if the f-22 cancelled and so money can pour into f-35's acceleration, where it actually plays a major role in the this aircraft, building center fuselage, weapon bay, arresting gears, Distributed Aperture system, and of course the AESA radar.

 

[r16]

regarding production numbers of the F-35 ı have already betted on a Turkish equivalent of a hamburger that it will definitely reach 4 digits but it will be very close ...

 

[voidmage]

Numbers are a crucial parameter not only in establishing effective,projectional,operative value of a new weapon system,but also,indirectly,its cost.
If indeed,on the one hand, a established,condition-planned low cost can "codify" for a high number of unity in the production phase,on the other the same high unity's number aid to maintain low the cost in the middle period(writing off,at example,research's expenditures on a greater number of unity).
From the "crossing" between the function describing this dynamic equilibrium-governed parameter and that describing the technological and tactical impact(in the expected operative theatre and fruition role)of the single systems implemented in the design, you obtain the cost-efficiency value.
Now the very difficult question become only establish if F-22(with all possible modifications) in a significant higher number(like 600-700) would be,in the 15-20 time-projection’s window, a more cost-efficient aircraft than JSF (F-35).
From the the possible responses to this question derive also the motivations who each of us give to the choice of USA of prohibit ,still now,F-22(a VLO-high kinematical-performant aircraft )sale to any other nation (historical ally too)and,conversely, place “exportability”and even joint development at the foundation of the project JSF-F-35 (a VLO-low kinematical-performant aircraft).

 

[V8Interceptor]

what happens when one idiot tries to come for help

Maybe Lockmart can develop a dedicated anti-pirate version to go along with the Anti-IED variant (alright, technically it was not supposed to be a purpose built version) they were proposing:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001984.html

 

[airman]

so F-35 seems "brother" version of F-22 with one engine than two of their major brother !

 

[donnage99]

so F-35 seems "brother" version of F-22 with one engine than two of their major brother !

nope. It lacks the stealth and raw performance of the f-22. Being one engine, with similar max fuel, it should have similar range. It has more "up-to-date" sensors to allow it to work in a system of system environment, unlike the f-22, which needs serious upgrades to bring it up to date. The two are built around not just two different emphasis, but also two different combat doctrines. One is a lone tiger, while the other is a pack of wolves.

 

[voidmage]

Just today ,at ausairpower'site ,has been added a APA NOTAM on comparative cost of JSF and F-22's upgrade program: www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-110409-1.html

Imaging who some “a priori” scepticals (also facing aseptic numbers),will try to disown these numbers like unreliable,manipulated or (worst) absolutely compatible with annual inflation rate,i have searched also official March 2008 GAO -United States Government Accountability Office- document on that: www.scribd.com/doc/8371352/GAO-JSF-Program-Risks .
Good read.

 

[GTX]

Please remember that the "Air Power Australia" gang are extremely biased (to the point of being ridiculous) against the F-35/towards the F-22 (and the F-111 for that matter). I would take anything they write with a fistful of salt.

Regards,

Greg

 

[sferrin]

I'll bet someone had to talk Carlo off a building after Gates made his announcement on the F-22.

 

[voidmage]

Above all,i believe in facts (better if backed by verifiables numbers).
If i must chose between two source,i chose that who have demonstred the capacity to accurately predict parametric variations, in a precise time window,of a particular aspect on the planned project.

Three years ago a triennal cost projection(10-06-2006 www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf) elaborated by ausairpower on the 2005 GAO predicted a AUPC (Average Unit ProcurementCost) of about US$ 94.08 million (December 2005-on planned 2006 dollar value)with a projectional cost of US$ 97,04 million for 2008 (it was almost precise,but anyhow wronged........for defect!). The response(with wide, mixed use of “strong”and “scoffing” phrases......but with way less numbers)was who, for end of 2008,the unity cost will be not superior to(2008) US$ 80,2 (but only for the initial Low Rate Initial Production-LRIP)and probably a AUPC of no more than US$ 68 ml.

Facts (GAO survey)have followed ausairpower’s predictions(and,of course, of major worldwide experts on the field) and that have also caused some concerns into allied military circles and media
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304711616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[Triton]

Will the US Air Force buy the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle in the interim? Or will the F-15 Silent Eagle be an export only aircraft?

 

[voidmage]

Will the US Air Force buy the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle in the interim? Or will the F-15 Silent Eagle be an export only aircraft?

From the actual (few) informations we have,appear who F-15 silent eagle will be mostly destined to foreign market,with at actual estimated demand of about 190 unity.

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/17/323962/pictures-boeing-unveils-upgraded-f-15-silent-eagle-with-fifth-generation.htm

 

[donnage99]

Above all,i believe in facts (better if backed by verifiables numbers).
If i must chose between two source,i chose that who have demonstred the capacity to accurately predict parametric variations, in a precise time window,of a particular aspect on the planned project.

Three years ago a triennal cost projection(10-06-2006 www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf) elaborated by ausairpower on the 2005 GAO predicted a AUPC (Average Unit ProcurementCost) of about US$ 94.08 million (December 2005-on planned 2006 dollar value)with a projectional cost of US$ 97,04 million for 2008 (it was almost precise,but anyhow wronged........for defect!). The response(with wide, mixed use of “strong”and “scoffing” phrases......but with way less numbers)was who, for end of 2008,the unity cost will be not superior to(2008) US$ 80,2 (but only for the initial Low Rate Initial Production-LRIP)and probably a AUPC of no more than US$ 68 ml.

Facts (GAO survey)have followed ausairpower’s predictions(and,of course, of major worldwide experts on the field) and that have also caused some concerns into allied military circles and media
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304711616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But the thing is how APA stretched GAO's report into cutting the JSF completely, proposing Marines to get f-22 (pretty much bordering McInerney's pirate killing f-22 proposal) and Navy to get a canard (retractable?) f-22 instead.

As for the article on f-35 hitting 100 millions price tag for israel: isn't it known that early procurement of the f-35 will result in unreasonably enormous cost for each plane as production is slow in the beginning. That's what Israel should expect if it wants to get the plane before other countries do. It's a curved price tag, common knowledge for every single program in history. It's nothing to hit your head and say "breaking news!"

 

[Triton]

Above all,i believe in facts (better if backed by verifiables numbers).
If i must chose between two source,i chose that who have demonstred the capacity to accurately predict parametric variations, in a precise time window,of a particular aspect on the planned project.

Three years ago a triennal cost projection(10-06-2006 www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf) elaborated by ausairpower on the 2005 GAO predicted a AUPC (Average Unit ProcurementCost) of about US$ 94.08 million (December 2005-on planned 2006 dollar value)with a projectional cost of US$ 97,04 million for 2008 (it was almost precise,but anyhow wronged........for defect!). The response(with wide, mixed use of “strong”and “scoffing” phrases......but with way less numbers)was who, for end of 2008,the unity cost will be not superior to(2008) US$ 80,2 (but only for the initial Low Rate Initial Production-LRIP)and probably a AUPC of no more than US$ 68 ml.

Facts (GAO survey)have followed ausairpower’s predictions(and,of course, of major worldwide experts on the field) and that have also caused some concerns into allied military circles and media
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304711616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But the thing is how APA stretched GAO's report into cutting the JSF completely, proposing Marines to get f-22 (pretty much bordering McInerney's pirate killing f-22 proposal) and Navy to get a canard (retractable?) f-22 instead.

As for the article on f-35 hitting 100 millions price tag for israel: isn't it known that early procurement of the f-35 will result in unreasonably enormous cost for each plane as production is slow in the beginning. That's what Israel should expect if it wants to get the plane before other countries do. It's a curved price tag, common knowledge for every single program in history. It's nothing to hit your head and say "breaking news!"

If you want to be an early adopter, you're going to pay for it. ;D

 

[voidmage]

Donnage 99 this is not the price for a early procurement(LRIP –Low rate initial production). Please re-read the official document of GAO (i repost the link for you: www.scribd.com/doc/8371352/GAO-JSF-Program-Risks )
“But the thing is how APA stretched GAO's report into cutting the JSF completely”
It is the opposite; APA has demonstred great correctness,it has not speculated on the study,at the contrary ,respecting its documentary,scientifical approach,has only used the numbers in a strictly comparative way.
If it want to take advantage of GAO’s survey(who collimate at 100% with APA projection and with those of three other indipendent organizations-see pag 19 of document )and its total reject of JSF office program’s work,it would cite wole paragraphs of it like:
“Program Costs Expected to Increase and Schedule Worsen” (pag.18) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Reliable”(pag.20) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Comprehensive”(pag.20) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Accurate” (pag.21) or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Well Documented”(pag. 22)or “The JSF Cost Estimate is Not Credible”(pag.23)
If APA want to point on the words it would cite from pag 94 of March 2009 “Defences Aquisitions Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” (link in the same APA NOTAM):
1)“The program began testing its first production representative prototype—a short takeoff vertical landing variant flown in conventional mode—in June 2008(personal note: initially programmed for July 2006). A fully integrated, capable aircraft is not expected to enter flight testing until 2012, increasing risks that problems found may require design and production changes and retrofits of completed aircraft.”

2)“Despite the program’s continued manufacturing problems and the infancy of the flight test program, DOD officials want to accelerate production by 169 aircraft between fiscal years 2010 and 2015. This may require up to $33.5 billion in additional procurement funding in those years. We believe this more aggressive production approach is optimistic and risky.”

I remind who,for now,we are talking “only” of the cost problem,but Carlo Kopp has also challenged (in 17/02/2009 APA NOTAM www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-170209-1.html ) to disavow its words and data on operative capacity of F-35 with very low cost experiments, conducted ,or supervised ,by no money-political involved organizations. Anyone would bet on the results of similar neutral-conducted experiments? I can bet who Kopp would surely bet.....Davis almost surely not.

 

[donnage99]

I'm not talking about one particular "letter" to Gates by APA folks. I'm talking about APA's theme in general. It started off with just "f-35 is not suited for Australia's need" to proposing to scrap the whole JSF program. It did propose to replace them with f-22 for the marines and navy. GAO's report is but one tool represented by APA to further its agenda.