The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[quellish]

How does regurgitating what I have already pointed out help this debate?

Moreover, please explain how does "redesign ...to improve deployability" translate into a perceivd redesign of the entire ALIS system or even that ALIS "has serious design issues"?

Again, according to the DOT&E report you have mentioned (quoted in this thread):

The program failed to design the unit-level ALIS hardware for deployability.

The ALIS unit-level hardware was not designed to be forward deployed, according to DoD. DoD considers this a serious issue, and it is a matter of the system's design (it wasn't designed for deployability) rather than system maturity. Thus, "serious design issues".

Also from the DOT&E report (also quoted in this thread):

The program worked through late 2010 and 2011 to redesign the system and provide improved deployability by late 2014

The program worked to improve the ability to deploy ALIS to forward locations and redesign the system. I do not believe there is any indication that the *entire* system has been redesigned. ALIS is a system of systems. Individual components (such as hardware) and interfaces (such as some of the external software interfaces) have undergone redesign.

Moreover, the fact that some of us, such as myself, have a greater understanding through either direct involvement in the program, or more direct access to government or defence officials or simply have been involved in similar program's or the like and this have a greater knowledge and experience base, should not be an excuse to insult us by calling us fanboys or LM yes men or the like. Sorry, but increased access to facts can sometimes be frustrating to those who don't.

A number of forum members have access to the same kinds of sources, or have had the same kinds of experiences. Unfortunately the subject matter of this forum does not always allow us to share as much as we may like - we are very much limited to posting information that is already in the public domain. While that can be frustrating, it can't be changed. I would be cautious about assuming someone has a greater understanding of anything than someone else - especially on this forum.

 

[Triton]

Would it be calamity if the United States Air Force ordered new Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle or new Lockheed Martin F-16 Super Viper fighters and/or the United States Navy ordered new Boeing F-18 International, or variant, due to delays in the Joint Strike Fighter program?

 

[GTX]

The ALIS unit-level hardware was not designed to be forward deployed, according to DoD. DoD considers this a serious issue, and it is a matter of the system's design (it wasn't designed for deployability) rather than system maturity. Thus, "serious design issues".

And as I have already said "the [deployability] problem is already identified as being worked upon and is planned to be ready by 2014. If anyone is concerned about F-35s not being ready to deploy to a forward operating combat location between now and then, please speak up... : " Seriously!

I do not believe there is any indication that the *entire* system has been redesigned. ALIS is a system of systems. Individual components (such as hardware) and interfaces (such as some of the external software interfaces) have undergone redesign.

If that is what you believe, then fine. We are in agreement. However, when I read comments that simply state that "ALIS has serious design issues. ALIS redesign/modification isn't due to deliver until late 2014" or similar, that do not qualify whether the writer is talking about ALIS as a whole or just the deployability aspect, what am I supposed to assume? As already explained, I am all too experienced unfortunately with some here taking one little factoid and trying to turn it into a calamitous issue. After a while you get used to it... :

 

[SpudmanWP]

Calamity, no; financially irresponsible, IMHO yes.




First, the "Fighter Gap" issue:


The USN has already ordered F-18s due to the F-35 delay, so that question has been dealt with. Buying even more Super Hornets would be pointless in a fighter gap perspective.


On the USAF side of things, the gap is being dealt with by selective upgrades to existing fighters. This way you are only having to pay for 5-10 years of a fighter instead of 30-40 which a new build would require.


Second, the "would it be cheaper to buy some 4th gen" issue:


Short term, maybe; long term, not.


A. Procurement Costs:


The FRP F-35A is projected (by the DoD, not LM) to be much cheaper than the F-15SE (~$75 mil vs ~$100 mil) and is due to the production efficiencies, one engine, economies of scale, etc in the JSF program. Every 4th gen asset bought drives up the cost of the remaining F-35s. Development funds for the F-15SE program would also have to be added to the overall cost.


B. Operational Costs:


IIRC the F-15 drinks gas at a higher rate, in combat config, than the F-35. The F-15 also requires more IFR, ISR, jamming, decoys, twice the pilot costs (training, housing, pay, healthcare, retirements, etc), and so on. The F-16V is not much better. While it may be a single pilot (with the option for two) and a single engine, it still suffers from the need for more IFR, ISR, jammers, decoys escorts, etc.


C. Sustainment Costs:


Due to economies of scale, on average, parts for the F-35 will be cheaper than any other 4th gen asset. Any new airframes introduced into the mix will just drive up the parts costs for all the F-35s in use.


To surmise the need for more supporting assets:


http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/1b77b29e.jpg

 

[SlowMan]

Second, the "would it be cheaper to buy some 4th gen" issue:

Short term, maybe; long term, not.

Many JSF partners originally needed to complete the purchases by 2020, so what matters to them is short term price, they couldn't care less about the long term price.

The FRP F-35A is projected (by the DoD, not LM) to be much cheaper than the F-15SE (~$75 mil vs ~$100 mil)

In reality it is exactly opposite. In the Korean contest where both are competing, the F-35 is all but ruled out for costing $5 billion over the budget while the Silent Eagle is in the pole position thanks to its lowest price bid of three.

one engine

Which is F-35's disadvantage, not an advantage.

Every 4th gen asset bought drives up the cost of the remaining F-35s.

That is none of the JSF partner nation's concerns. The concerns of JSF partner nations is to acquire fighter jets at the lowest possible cost and with the greatest industrial participation benefits. If other jets can do the required jobs of air defense better than the F-35 at less cost, then that's all it matters.

Development funds for the F-15SE program would also have to be added to the overall cost.

Which isn't a lot, well below $1 billion because the F-15SA already has funded most of technology needed, such as FBW, DEWS, all new avionics suits, AESA integration, etc.

IIRC the F-15 drinks gas at a higher rate, in combat config, than the F-35.

And carries much larger payload.

The F-15 also requires more IFR, ISR, jamming, decoys, twice the pilot costs

For strike missions, two pilots are much better than one. Auto pilot cannot replace the front seat pilot in real combat situations.

Due to economies of scale, on average, parts for the F-35 will be cheaper than any other 4th gen asset.

What Lockheed cool aid are you drinking? The US Navy is demanding a substantial increase in fighter jet operating budget because F-35 cost much more to operate than the Hornets and Harriers that it replaces.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Hmm. I don't understand your statement that one engine is a massive disadvantage of the F35. The USAF is asking for a single engine and the USMC needs STOVL. That accounts for the vast majority of F35 total numbers for the US. The 200 or so for the Navy are the only ones I've ever heard criticized for having one engine. That may or may not be legitimate.

Are you saying that the Air Force and Marine Corps are mistaken when they specifically have requested single engine fighters?

So, I guess you just have a different opinion than the USAF and the USMC. I can deal with that.

How much internal payload will an F15SE carry? Less than JSF. If you include external stores, doesn't the F35 carry up to 18,000lbs. F15SE carries a significant amount more?

If foreign partners just want a cheap jet with industrial participation, why aren't they all flocking to the Gripen? Why aren't they all pulling out of the program? (some orders have been cut a little. global economic slowdown?)

Seems like some people don't mind just throwing all kinds of slop around and seeing if any of it sticks.

 

[LowObservable]

I am simply sick and tired of absolute rubbish being posted by those who either are grossly ignorant, have alternate agendas (sorry, but i do believe this is sometimes the case) or are just simply hoping that it will be cancelled ( I am sure they will deny it, but there are some here who want nothing more than the F-35 notch on their belt and the ability to say I told you so!").

...What I can't abide though is people trying to justify their dislike of the F-35 by jumping on each and every factoid and trying to make 'mountains out of molehills'. I also can not abide deliberate misleading articles and the like. I find such tactics at the best ignorant and at the worst unethical!

... the fact that some of us, such as myself, have a greater understanding through either direct involvement in the program, or more direct access to government or defence officials or simply have been involved in similar program's or the like and this have a greater knowledge and experience base, should not be an excuse to insult us by calling us fanboys or LM yes men or the like. Sorry, but increased access to facts can sometimes be frustrating to those who don't.

At the end of the day, I know that the members of an Internet forum will not influence the outcome of the F-35 program (sorry guys, but we're not that important). I will however, continue battling misinformation and ignorance, especially when it is blatant or deliberate.

Well, I guess we should all give a vote of thanks to GTX. For someone in such a high, responsible position with lots of clearances, who's "served in the RAAF (in both Engineering and Strategy roles) and worked in Defence Industry (both in Projects and otherwise) for many years" (per an earlier SP post) and has so much program experience, to spare the time to lecture us, is a privilege indeed. Even when it is pointless, as he says. I mean, what more selfless task could a man take on, than to speak truth to power, regardless of the consequences, and sign his own name to it?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Many JSF partners originally needed to complete the purchases by 2020, so what matters to them is short term price, they couldn't care less about the long term price.

Source? Norway's choice of the F-35 over the Gripen specifically cited the long-term program savings of the F-35 over the Gripen.

In reality it is exactly opposite. In the Korean contest where both are competing, the F-35 is all but ruled out for costing $5 billion over the budget while the Silent Eagle is in the pole position thanks to its lowest price bid of three.

In Reality? Do you have access to the Korean bids to make an apples-to-apples comparison? Besides, the Korean bid deals mostly with LRIP F-35s, not FRP jets (the point of this conversation).

Which is F-35's disadvantage, not an advantage.

Only in your eyes (and maybe the USN's). A single engine is a USAF requirement because it saves money & time. The F-16s have done just fine in the past and engine tech is getting safer and safer. btw, recent Hornet crashes have been caused when one engine failure took out both engines.

That is none of the JSF partner nation's concerns. The concerns of JSF partner nations is to acquire fighter jets at the lowest possible cost and with the greatest industrial participation benefits. If other jets can do the required jobs of air defense better than the F-35 at less cost, then that's all it matters.

This conversation is about the USAF buying F-15/16 instead of some F-35s. In this case, it would affect Partner nations a lot in terms of F-35 cost and support.

Which isn't a lot, well below $1 billion because the F-15SA already has funded most of technology needed, such as FBW, DEWS, all new avionics suits, AESA integration, etc.

If we bought 50-100 then that is an extra $10-20 million per airframe.

And carries much larger payload.

The F-15SE carries a smaller payload in LO mode and still burns more gas = higher cost for the F-15SE.

For strike missions, two pilots are much better than one. Auto pilot cannot replace the front seat pilot in real combat situations.

The superior SA of the F-35 more than makes up for the Mk1 Eyeball of the 2nd pilot.

The US Navy is demanding a substantial increase in fighter jet operating budget because F-35 cost much more to operate than the Hornets and Harriers that it replaces.

One discredited slide vs all the official docs? Guess which one I'll go with? Btw, we are talking about parts cost alone.

 

[GTX]

In the Korean contest where both are competing, the F-35 is all but ruled out for costing $5 billion over the budget while the Silent Eagle is in the pole position thanks to its lowest price bid of three. .

Given the Korean contest is still to be decided I have to compliment you on your willingness to rule out theF-35 already. A few years ago, I thought the JASDF would have gone with more F-15s to replace their F-4s. Guess what though, they decided on the F-35 instead. Let's wait to see if you need to eat your words in a few months time...

 

[Arjen]

Source: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/
[...]

The program failed to design the unit-level ALIS hardware for deployability. The squadron operating unit weighs 2,466 pounds and measures 79 inches high by 40 inches deep and 24 inches wide. It also requires climate-controlled'environments. The program worked through late 2010 and 2011 to redesign the system and provide improved deployability by late 2014. However, there is no plan for end-to-end testing of the system, and funding of retrofits or changes to the units that will be purchased in the meantime. The problem needs correction in order to take advantage of F-35 capability in forward operating locations expected in combat.
Data Quality and Integration Management (DQIM) is a vital part of the autonomic logistics global sustainment plan for the F-35. The ALIS version 1.0.3 is supposed to incorporate DQIM; however, missing data elements (e.g. part number, logistics control number, serial number) of vendor supply databases have prevented timely testing and fielding of ALIS version 1.0.3. This results in the development of manual data tracking processes for early LRIP aircraft. The program expects to have DQIM data products available to support ALIS 1.0.3 fielding in May 2012.

Many of the issues I've outlined - most - are not system maturity issues but design issues. While ALIS certainly has issues stemming from system maturity, there are many issues that are due to the design or architecture of the system.

I agree with quellish: ALIS has serious design issues. ALIS redesign/modification isn't due to deliver until late 2014; implementing a job that big without end-to-end testing of ALIS seems like bad management to me.

This is in reply to GTX's complaint about me picking up 'factoids' and subsequently blowing them up to calamity level.

My day job involves software development and implementing changes in testing and production environment. I went through DOT&E's 2011 report in search of information on ALIS's status and found some fairly disturbing 'factoids' concerning ALIS's design
1) ALIS as in use in 2011 is not designed for deployability (by the way: I never wrote redesign for deployabilty meant total redesign for ALIS)
2) in 2011, deficiencies in ALIS's <edit>datamodel database</edit> were such that testing and fielding Data Quality and Integration Management (DQIM) was severely impaired

I take it both 'factoids' have been recognized by project management as serious issues and are being acted upon. So far, so good.

ALIS redesign for deployability is not to deliver field results until late 2014. This implies redesign and subsequent implementation is a major effort, entailing significant changes to ALIS. Not bothering with end-to-end testing of such big changes, nor taking into account the cost of retrofits or changes to equipment already in use, to me speaks of a cavalier attitude to project management. Act in haste, repent at leisure. As for the reliability of promises for solving this issue by late 2014: I will believe it when I see it.

Just as disturbing, after this many years of development, was the absence in ALIS's database of <edit>data-entities 'data elements (e.g. part number, logistics control number, serial number) of vendor supply databases' </edit> critical to implementation of DQIM, resulting in 'the development of manual data tracking processes for early LRIP aircraft', directly affecting operating costs. The DOT&E report stated this was to be remedied by May 2012. Other people may know if this has been achieved.
<edit>The absence of these data points to either
- sloppy data-modeling, or
- a persistent communication problem between vendor supply databases and ALIS, or
- insufficient/incompatible bookkeeping by vendors

This is not an exhaustive list of possible causes, but an issue of this kind, this late in development, is another pointer at defective project management.</edit>

GTX made a point of ALIS's issues being mainly immaturity issues, I repeat I'm of the opinion that ALIS has serious design issues. For ALIS to be 'mainly' suffering from immaturity, would mean, in my opinion, those immaturity issues to be even bigger. As for 'calamity', that's GTX's choice of words, not mine.

 

[LowObservable]

Spud - One of Norway's signature dishes comprises cod pickled in drain cleaner. The nation is eminently used to taking something actively toxic and washing it until it will not kill you, although it will gag you if you're not used to it.


If you're talking about Norway's 2008 assessment, the same applies. First, it was based on the projected cost and schedule for JSF in 2008, which was the stuff of fantasy. Second, in order to render Gripen non-competitive, the Norwegians assumed that the non-recurring upgrade costs would be LockMart-like.


Another factoid being tossed around here is that a single engine was a USAF requirement. I don't recall that it was so in the MRF days. The USAF was supportive of a single engine in the JAST stage - but then, nobody told them that the single engine was going to weigh and cost more than two F414s, and I suspect that might have influenced their thinking.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I'm sure they had a good idea of what the F135 would cost since it's core is the F119.


Besides, the increased diameter of the F135 will make it easier to upgrade it to more advanced types like ADVENT later on.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

If the F135 being so expensive and heavy has influenced the USAF desire for a 1 engined fighter in a negative way, they should tell someone about it soon! It makes it look like they want the 35 if they remain shy about letting the World know their concerns.

 

[RyanC]

And your point being?? This is nothing new and has been understood to be the case for a while now... :

My point is that the quoted prices by the Australian MoD which have been proclaimed loudly to prove that F-35 is affordable...are still based around the assumption that the US will buy 2,400 of them.

 

[LowObservable]

Spud/BLL - At the point where the decision was made, everyone was pretty well convinced that the JSF engine would be much cheaper than the F119 - "not even close", was the goal defined by GE/RR - and by the time the check arrived, the decision point was a decade in the past.


By the way, there's a lot of misunderstanding concerning the relationship of quantity to cost. Sure, building more of something is economically good (unless you make a hash of the ramp-up, cf Boeing 737 NG). But a few qualifiers need to be borne in mind.


Rate is not everything. As noted earlier in this thread, Boeing can build Super Hornets off a 40-some-per-year line (incuding Growlers) for less money than the F-35A (not B/C) is ever predicted to cost, even with 80+ F-35As coming off a 130+ line every year. The F-35A has some features and processes that the SH doesn't, but not enough to make that much of a difference.


Or to put it another way: I can't build a BMW 3-series for the same price as a Ford Focus, irrespective of rate.


Also, an airplane, like some other complex machines, is an assembly of parts produced by an inverse pyramid of suppliers. The farther you get from the top, the more these suppliers generically make components. So if I'm the guy who makes the landing gear forgings, or suppies castings to PW for engines, or a composite skin, the more my business model is driven by my total volume, not any one program. The people who buy my raw materials or operate my crucibles and presses are skilled at doing that.


Any differences to the job between something that ends up in a JSF and something that will go in a 737 are not necessarily huge, and a top-ranked supplier will keep it that way, because he stands to make far more from the commercial market than the military.


There are exceptions to the above (like stealth processes) but this is still very different from the weapon-system mentality of the 1950s and 1960s, when bombers and fighters were built in thousands and airliners in hundreds and military aerospace led the way in all kinds of technologies - so almost everything, in something like a B-58 or F-111, had to be designed from scratch.


Two more observations and then I will quit.


Augustine's Law wasn't about "lower rates equal higher cost" but the other way around. Augustine's observation was that the price of the individual aircraft kept going up, which was hardly surprising given the addition of new capabilities.


The "procurement death spiral" is not inevitable. In some respects it is a fiction - what's actually happening is real versus rosy-prediction production costs. But there's no reason that reduced rates and quantities automatically mean catastrophically higher production costs, as long as (1) you don't build half or more of your jets concurrently with development and (2) you manage your overhead and scale your production to fit the rate you're going to build, not the rate you hope you're going to build.

 

[DD]

I'm sure they had a good idea of what the F135 would cost since it's core is the F119.


Besides, the increased diameter of the F135 will make it easier to upgrade it to more advanced types like ADVENT later on.

A very good example of the "Demons of Stupidity" at work.

There are quite a few fundamental problems in the design of the F135 engine, two of which relate to the weight.

Firstly, because it must react all that torque and other loads associated with generating over 30,000 SHP to power the STOVL lift fan, the F135 weighs in at over 2,000 lb heavier than an F119 fitted with an equivalent axisymmetric afterburner section in place of the heavy 2D TVC nozzle.

Using the same heavy engine to power the non-STOVL variants of the JSF is just plain stupid for reasons that are obvious to those who know.

Secondly, the increased diameter and higher weights of the rotating components leads to higher rotational inertia, resulting in spool up times that some have said are 'measured in calendar months'!

The latter is one of the reasons for needing spoilers on the F-35C wing in a way not dissimilar to the fix applied to the S-3 Viking to avoid ramp strikes.

 

[SpudmanWP]

For that reason I hope that if/when they go for an ADVENT (or something else) F135 replacement that they stick to a A/C replacement only and leave the current F135 (or CEP upgraded F135) for the B.


btw, Considering that the F119 costs more per pound than the F135, it's doing ok (but not as well as they planned).

 

[DD]

I am simply sick and tired of absolute rubbish being posted by those who either are grossly ignorant, have alternate agendas (sorry, but i do believe this is sometimes the case) or are just simply hoping that it will be cancelled ( I am sure they will deny it, but there are some here who want nothing more than the F-35 notch on their belt and the ability to say I told you so!").

...What I can't abide though is people trying to justify their dislike of the F-35 by jumping on each and every factoid and trying to make 'mountains out of molehills'. I also can not abide deliberate misleading articles and the like. I find such tactics at the best ignorant and at the worst unethical!

... the fact that some of us, such as myself, have a greater understanding through either direct involvement in the program, or more direct access to government or defence officials or simply have been involved in similar program's or the like and this have a greater knowledge and experience base, should not be an excuse to insult us by calling us fanboys or LM yes men or the like. Sorry, but increased access to facts can sometimes be frustrating to those who don't.

At the end of the day, I know that the members of an Internet forum will not influence the outcome of the F-35 program (sorry guys, but we're not that important). I will however, continue battling misinformation and ignorance, especially when it is blatant or deliberate.

Well, I guess we should all give a vote of thanks to GTX. For someone in such a high, responsible position with lots of clearances, who's "served in the RAAF (in both Engineering and Strategy roles) and worked in Defence Industry (both in Projects and otherwise) for many years" (per an earlier SP post) and has so much program experience, to spare the time to lecture us, is a privilege indeed. Even when it is pointless, as he says. I mean, what more selfless task could a man take on, than to speak truth to power, regardless of the consequences, and sign his own name to it?

Despite what some might think after reading the posts of this Ozzie chap, GTX, it seems there are still quite a number of Australians with fully operational Bullshit Filters:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/dane-f-35-problem-is-everyones-problem.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/index.htm

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=fadt_ctte/procurement/index.htm

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/minister-mandarins-and-the-military/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=minister-mandarins-and-the-military

"It's said that a fish rots from the head"!

Now that is PRICELESS!

 

[DD]

For that reason I hope that if/when they go for an ADVENT (or something else) F135 replacement that they stick to a A/C replacement only and leave the current F135 (or CEP upgraded F135) for the B.


btw, Considering that the F119 costs more per pound than the F135, it's doing ok (but not as well as they planned).

Yet another fine example of the "Demons of Stupidity" at work.

They keep coming thick and fast.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Care to share what you disagree with or are you planning to stick to one-liners?

 

[DD]

Oh, and BTW, according to the latest SAR and USAF internal budgetary figures I have seen, the F119-100 does not "cost as much per pound than the F135".

Seems the "Demons of Stupidity" which are obvious can't do basic arithmetic, either!

 

[SpudmanWP]

Dec 2011 F-35 SAR puts the average F135 USAF Engine REC cost in FY2012 dollars at $10.8 mil.


http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/F-35%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf


Since the last F-22 SAR (2010) does not break out the engine cost, we have to look at the 2010 budget.



The 2010 budget shows that the last F119s (FY2009 buy year) cost $10.25 mil each.


http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-090.pdf


Considering we know that the F135 weighs considerably more than the F119, that makes the F119 more expensive than the F135 on both a "per-pound of weight" and "per-pound of thrust" basis.


Now, instead of one-liners, try providing sources.

 

[DD]

Care to share what you disagree with or are you planning to stick to one-liners?

Quite a lot can be said in one line. For example:

You are obviously under the influence of your own "Demons of Stupidity".

Misinterpreting open source data as you do is not a good look.

I could show you my sources, but then I would have to shoot you.

"It is said a fish rots from the head."

Or what John Hudson wrote back in 2003:

"Some non-KPP threshold requirements will not be met for all JSF variants."

Then there is the one liner question: e.g.

Aren't Threshold Level Specifications the absolute bare minimum acceptable?

What part of "the JSF designs do not meet even the Threshold Specifications" don't you get?

 

[SpudmanWP]

I see you're firing off the one-liners without providing sources to back up your claims again.

 

[DD]

"The DoD average F-35 Engine Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Propulsion
and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 19 Foreign Military Sales engines and 697 International Partner engines.

F-35A (Conventional Takeoff and Landing) URF - $10.9 M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $27.7 M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $10.9 M (BY 2012)"

Though this is from the Dec 2011 SAR which is now very much dated, our friend who is under the influence of his own "Demons of Stupidity" is relying on it to support his quite flawed assertions.

Let's see if he can figure out where he is going wrong if we give him some hints like -

Hints: The average F-35 Engine Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost is not, by some degree, the engine unit cost the USAF actually pays for the F135-100 propulsion system. Then there are the costs for the CIP to address the 'concurrency issues' plus the ongoing "as well as activities costing more than originally planned, rate changes and the estimated cost of future risks"!

 

[SpudmanWP]

I used the most recent data available for both the the F-35 and F-22 programs. If you have something more recent, link it instead of simply saying I am wrong.


Btw, I provided an apples-to-apples comparison (ie F-22 REC to F-35A REC) instead of pulling numbers from thin air. Actually, you did not even provide numbers, just claims that I was wrong.


Nice try, but swing and a miss.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My point is that the quoted prices by the Australian MoD which have been proclaimed loudly to prove that F-35 is affordable...are still based around the assumption that the US will buy 2,400 of them.

There are two things wrong with this point which I’ll counter-point-out.

Firstly the pricing of the Australian purchase is not dependent on the gross scale of the US order but rather the level of production in the years that the aircraft are brought. For those tranches which have been approved by government they are the years 2020-25 (for 75 odd units*). If the US was to cut they commitment in half these years would still be at full rate production so not affect the Australian price.

The second point is this line about “assuming” the US will buy 2,400 units. I’ve read it a few times before in this thread as if it’s a given that the F-35 will not meet the current production plan. It is a RISK that the USG will slash their F-35 commitment but it is most definitely not a certainty. To “assume” that the F-35 will meet the committed to and forward budgeted for number of aircraft is the normal state. One has to assume or fantasise to think that otherwise will happen. Of course it is a risk but risk expectations becoming certainties is the domain of paranoid minds.

The F-35 is different to every other fighter project that has preceded it. The USG has planned on buying F-35s at full rate production for over 20 years (close to 30) before the plane has even entered production. This is completely unprecedented. And what it does is it spreads the spend over, literally, decades. So despite the cost and scale of the project it makes it very resilient to being cancelled or truncated. Unlike projects like the B-2 and F-22 with more conventional 10 year production programs.

* Back Up Para:

Things get complex for the RAAF order with the final, un-approved tranche of 25 F-35s that will replace the Super Hornets. Australia had always split this squadrons worth from the main buy to give flexibility to perhaps buy something newer (now very unlikely) but the acquisition of the Super Hornet has changed the timeframe. The original plan for this squadron of aircraft was to buy them before 2025 and they would replace the last F/A-18A unit. Now the plan for the buy has been pushed back to the 2030s where they could replace the Super Hornets at their end of life. Emphasis should be placed on the *could* because this tranche is still unapproved. However if the US was to end production in the 2020s then Australia could awlways buy these planes earlier which actually would be cheaper as the cost model uses Then Year Dollars (TYD) which take into account increases in inflation.

 

[DD]

I used the more recent data available for both the the F-35 and F-22 programs. If you have something more recent, link it instead of simply saying I am wrong.


Btw, I provided an apples-to-apples comparison (ie F-22 REC to F-35A REC) instead of pulling numbers from thin air. Actually, you did not even provide numbers, just claims that I was wrong.


Nice try, but swing and a miss.

Though you claim the opposite, yours is not an "apples to apples comparison", by a long way.

If you really want to get rid of your "Demons of Stupidity" and not be wrong, then take the time to read the dated documents you alluded to. Assuming you know or can work out how to read SARs and Budget Papers, you should soon see where and why you are wrong.

The more recent documents with the latest costing data, like the June 2012 SAR, are not yet "link-able".

However, send or post your contact details and I will see if it can be arranged for them to be snail mailed out to you.

As for the power of the one liner, John Hudson pretty much said all that needed to be said back in 2003 which he then summarised in one line in the December 2003 SAR that was finally published in March, 2004.

Therefore, what part of "the JSF designs do not meet even Threshold Level Specifications" don't you get?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Really? Again with the "You're wrong, but I won't say how" posts?


I did a REC to REC comparison using the most recent publicly available data. It doesn't get any more apples-to-apples than that.

If you have different numbers, post them along with your logic used to arrive at them and sources to back it up.

As far as snail mail.. feel free to scan the appropriate pages and attach them to your claims for all to see.


btw, quotes from 2003 are pre-SWAT & SDD improvements and are no longer relevant.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Bad attitudes on display here. Locked for a breather.

 

[SlowMan]

I was going to write this reply to SpudmanWP's post at "The Bar" forum, but the thread was locked for some reason.

Yes, there is now a strong hint that Boeing won the Korean F-X contest based on two indirect evidences.

1. The treasury ministry is going to hold a side by side comparison between the indigenous KFX development plan vs the heavy modification of the "FX3 contest winner's" existing model early next year to see which one cost less while meeting the performance goal. This implies a Boeing win because Lockheed did not include such a plan in its bid.

2. Korean F-15 parts supplier's stocks are rising for 10 straight days at the stock market, based on the market anticipation of Boeing win. In fact, one large F-15 parts supplier was mentioning a big fighter jet parts order coming in the next quarter in its financial statement.

Korea appears to be the first open fighter jet contest where the F-35 is defeated.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That also may be linked to the F-15SA sale instead of F-X.

 

[SlowMan]

That also may be linked to the F-15SA sale instead of F-X.

The F-15 parts supplier company official explicitly stated that it was the FX3, not F-15SA, from which the company anticipates orders next quarter. This company specializes in electronics and avionics, so it is impossible that they would win any F-35 electronics/avionics orders.

Basically, the F-35 bid submission was so horrible that it was written off before the flight test. And the budget pressure from the newly concluded $4 billion 800 km local ballistic missile range extension deal plus $1 billion or so Global Hawk deal(a deal sweetener for the 800 km ballistic missile range extension deal) ensures that the lowest price bidder wins. The budget pressure is such that the $2 billion tanker project was axed, so no money to buy 60 F-35s at $13 billion. Whatever they choose to buy, it will be at or under $7.9 billion.

 

[SlowMan]

nt. Double post.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why is it impossible to win its own F-35 contracts? Since they are not a partner their F-35s do not follow the normal MOU process (just like Japan).

 

[SlowMan]

Why is it impossible to win its own F-35 contracts?

F-35 Electronics subsystems are classified, sealed, and off-limits to foreign contractors.

All Lockheed offered was wings, vertical/horizontal tails, and rear box section, under the condition that the winning contractors invest in $500 million of their own money to participate as JSF partner suppliers. The local contractors didn't even bother to reply to Lockheed's workshare offer as unacceptable and unworkable, and actually went to the press to humiliate Lockheed.

Oh, no electronics/avionics related work for Japanese contractors too.

 

[GTX]

Basically, the F-35 bid submission was so horrible that it was written off before the flight test.

Interesting assessment given that a South Korean team has only recently (in the last few weeks) visited Ft Worth as part of their evaluation of the F-35...and that the decision on a winner is reportedly being delayed until early 2013...

 

[SlowMan]

Interesting assessment given that a South Korean team has only recently (in the last few weeks) visited Ft Worth as part of their evaluation of the F-35...and that the decision on a winner is reportedly being delayed until early 2013...

Performance criteria is a "pass/fail" system. As long as the minimum requirements are met, it's a pass. And they DO NOT CONSIDER STEALTH to be fair to all, because Lockheed will not let them measure the RCS.

But since other parts of Lockheed's bid comprising 70% of scoring is so terrible, the evaluaters can conclude that the F-35 has no chance of winning and proceed the bid evaluation as if they have a presumed winner to save time. This is why the treasury ministry announced that they are going to compare this "mysterious"(Not Lockheed) FX3 winner's proposal of KFX development plan against the indigenous plan next year.

 

[Triton]

Published on Oct 5, 2012 by LockheedMartinVideos

Video footage of F-35B and F-35C test flights compiled for Tailhook 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISpriu6HEA&feature=share&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is a shot of a Paveway being flown in that vid, nice.

On the F-35/F-X issues, let's hold off commenting/debating in the "News" thread and just wait for the "No Holds Barred" thread to reopen.