Recently, we have seen yet again, a US government report on the life cycle costs of the F-35 fleet from a 55 year perspective!
One could ask a simple question: what has mandated this question and why are they not fired?
There are many questions one can ask in life but wondering about the lifecycle costs of combat systems 55 years in the future is not one of them.
There can only be one purpose of posing this question: to come up with a PR number to club the program.
But analytically, we should laugh this effort off of the stage. Simply to pose the question should be met with ridicule, disdain or perhaps sorrow.
To give perspective, let us imagine that our predecessors had been so stupid or irrelevant. Let us go back in time – 55 years ago – and pretend that we are GAO analysts being tasked to look at the life cycle costs of weapon systems by the year 2012. (Hard to imagine President Eisenhower not calling such folks up to the White House for a barbecue, and not to eat ribs).
Some MORON at the GAO is trying to ESTIMATE costs of the F-35 fifty five years into the future!
Say it out loud. 55 fucking years!
And yet certain aviation websites and defense sites are publishing this GUESS and obvious HIT PIECE and running with it like its news.
I only wish that this was an April Fool's joke and not something that our government actually put out.
I'd be amazed if it wasn't par for the course. Pathetic.
UPDATE:
Darren hit me with the numbers that we should be looking at (journalist too)...
Production fly away cost
F-35A = $83.4 million ((£52 million))
F-35B = $108.1 million ((£67 million))
F-35C = $93.3 million ((£58 million))
Guess what bat fans...this makes the F-35, a stealth airplane and probably the most technologically advanced airplane flying known to the general public, cheaper than its rivals...Typhoon, Rafale and the F-15E/S/K. Kinda puts things into perspective doesn't it?
solomon,
ReplyDeletetoo true, i mean it like saying, tell me the lottery numbers. Does the number include refits, upgrades & that bird of prey cloaking device upgrade program that they'll start working on in 30 years time?? I mean if it doesn't, there gonna be $500 billion out right their!!
on a serious note, estimates going out more than a decade or 2 is enough!!!!
i don't know how they can present this type of thing to the public.
ReplyDeletei don't know how those writers in the aviation and defense sphere can blog/report on this without throwing a hissy fit.
i just don't get the world we're living in anymore.
these are the figures you should be looking at
ReplyDeleteProduction fly away cost
F-35A = $83.4 million ((£52 million))
F-35B = $108.1 million ((£67 million))
F-35C = $93.3 million ((£58 million))
Cost Per Flying Hour
F-35A = $35,200 ((£21824))
F-35B = $38,400 ((£23808))
F-35C = $36,300 ((£22506))
absolutely awesome. they're going up into the body of this post!
ReplyDeletecheers!!
Deletethe RN needs the F-35C, almost £15 million cheaper per copy than the B, cheaper to run aswell, just need to convince the ConDems (conservative & liberal democrats).
You watch, some moron will figure out how many years out they have to go to get it up to $2 trillion. And you're right. Can you imagine how fast someone's ass would be fired if they were screaming about how much the F-106 program would cost up to 2012?
ReplyDeleteWant to lower unit costs? Ramp up production!
ReplyDeleteLower costs will mean more customers coming on board, which buys you....
even lower unit costs!
Morons indeed.
If the US want to lower production costs without causing more concurrency costs, here's a thought:
ReplyDeletePass a bill allowing Multi-Year Buys while still in SDD. By the time the bill passes, they can check each year to see if the design is stable enough (probability in 2 years). So by 2014 or so they can enter into MYB deals which will save money big time and more importantly, introduce some stability into the program.
After TR2 (Tech Refresh 2) comes out as part of Blk 2B, the only thing left is more software. There is very little concurrency risk in post-TR2 updates and will likely at most be an extra processor card or two.
BTW: I thought this $1.X Trillion figure came as a CAPE estimate? You know the source, they're the same source that shows much higher costs (even after mods) than actuals for the aircraft already delivered. I don't blame the CAPE estimators entirely. I blame the rules they're 'required' to follow in developing their 'estimates' and the idiots who believe in the cost estimates enough to wave them in our faces.
ReplyDeletewell the study everyone is citing is from the GAO and they are bound by law to provide certain estimates and under certain rules. they were required to under the “joint explanatory statement to the DOD Appropriations Act, 2009” here is the GAO page for the full report.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-400SP
People at the GAO are numbers nerds, like me, like the CBO they are required to do things by law and follow certain assumptions given to it from the hill or the executive branch, so their analysis has many restrictions and limitations, unfortunately congress and the executive branch deflect criticism because the GAO publishes it and they get the flak and people are unfairly using it (in all honesty 1.5 trillion for 55 years is a damn good deal, we spend between 1/3 and ½ that each year on defense in general).
Where did you get those figures?? They seem WAY too low.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia, for example, cites the 2013 FY Air Force & Navy budgets as reporting these numbers:
F-35A: US$197 million (weapons system flyaway cost, 2012)
F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
wikipedia is wrong.
ReplyDeletesame figures are quoted by Collin Clark over at AOL from the latest report.
I found his figures, I assume this is link you're looking at:
Deletehttp://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/f-35-total-costs-soar-to-1-5-trillion-lockheed-defends-program/
That's very deceiving though. Those numbers are only really going to apply to nations after the F-35 enters service. Every nation up to purchase it at this point, as far as I know, is also helping pay the development cost.
Beside, the US government will never pay that number. And even if they do it'll be meaningless because of the absurd amount of cash wasted on developing the jet.
well.
Deleteyou do have a right to your opinion and many on other websites will agree with you 100 percent.
this is not one of those sites....but you knew that didn't you.
Don't get me wrong. I think the F-35 is a genius piece of American engineering and will undoubtedly serve our country well for the next two decades or so. I also think the F-22 production run was cut way too short.
DeleteGiven all that though I think the F-35 also represents a massive failure of the US Government's ability to properly secure contracts and control costs. It's that, that upsets me, not the jet(s).
why the passion for the F-22 when its basically 1980's stealth tech? the F-35 represents really the next generation in not only stealth but also in avionics.
Deleteand that will be its greatest weapon. as a matter of fact (and you know this) the F-35's systems are going to be integrated into the F-22 (if its antiquated computers can handle it)....
but that's not what i was getting at. my point was this. there are plenty of websites available to you .... websites that would welcome your views and would pat you on the back for having them,.
instead you came here.
why?
you know from reading the comments and my post that everyone here disagrees.
you wanted a fight didn't you?
Wow! Calm down. My last post actually concedes the F-35 is a great piece of hardware. That's not trolling; that's honest discussion. Besides, it's not like I'm just spouting random fud here; I did provide links for all my information (and even some of yours).
DeleteI actually found this site off a link from defensetech which, as I'm sure you know, is another AOL site... since you asked.
trust me...i'm far from heated ... just wondering what your motives are.
DeleteThe Wiki numbers are for just the current LRIP cycle and:
ReplyDelete1. Will not be the price that ANY Partner nation will be paying.
2. Do not show the estimated lifetime average cost.
As stated above in a comment to Solomon, I actually find the Wiki numbers more accurate. It's short sighted to look at only the cost of the plane off the line when you're also the ones designing it. To ignore development costs is financial suicide.
DeleteThe Wiki numbers are only accurate in that they represent what a FY2013 LRIP F-35 costs today. That is what 19 F-35s out of 3000+ cost. Kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it?
DeleteThere is still the issue of this cost is far above what operational F-35s will cost (being that they are still LRIP).
I had not considered the fact the the FY13 is only looking at LRIP costs. That does change things considerably.
DeleteSteven Oliver, your argument about development costs is somewhat reasonable but adding it to the cost of each plane doesnt pass a logic test. think about this scenario, if i want to build a house (and we will assume i have the money and no bank is involved) well first i am going to ask an engineer and/or architect to design it and make pretty drawings (of course just like with the F35 things will change when building begins), ok well i cut the engeineer/architect a check, and i get the plans. Now i go to a general contractor, he gives me a price and i pay him to build the house. he tells me he needs money up front to buy supplies but i will pay monthly for the amount of work done, ok great. So i cut a check to buy the supplies and then as its being built i pay the contractor to build it. is it relevant to look at the entire cost from design to housewarming party? absolutely! That said, when i am doing my budget every month i am not compounding the amount i have to pay someone based on the value of services/materials from the past, i am only going to pay for the work done in that time period.
ReplyDeletethis is the same scenario, when looking at each planes fly-away cost during production we look at it as how much does LM need this year to may X amount of planes (this includes labor, lobbyists, parts, lobbyists, kickbacks to congress, oh did i mention lobbyists? :)), congress appropriates the money based on the cost this year, and not based on cumulative costs. As i said before, its very relevant to look at the total cost of the program but its always puzzled me on why instead of looking at aggregate amount spent why they do it in planes being built today, doesn't make sense because its not the amount congress has to appropriate this budget cycle. Now in a few decades when the program of the F35 has reached the point of like the F15 of F16 where most if not all planes are built maybe it will help to look at the entire life cycle costs as it applies to per plane, but thats still an academic exercise not the amount paid for each production run, because alot of that money has already been paid for in the past. Adding development costs to planes we are building now is a distortion of the amount of money congress is authorizing to pay each year and is unfair to LM, congress or the people of this nation. because we need to know how much we spend year to year and how much we have already spent, not continuing to try to confuse people with the idea we are spending money again on services/products already rendered because those numbers aren't explicit and when you put life cycle costs in there most people dont know the complicated process so they see it as amount of money this year being paid, not total, and thats not fair to our democratic system where decisions are made at the "consent of the governed".
OK done with my rant, hahahaha, sorry :D
What LRIP aircraft cost is rather besides the point. What matters is the average cost of the aircraft. According to the USAF FY13 budget the current projection for 1,763 F-35A's is $112 million unit flyaway. The USN FY13 budget projects 290 B's to cost $144 million and $139 million for 321 C's.
ReplyDeleteNow if one wants to inflate those numbers they can just cite weapons system cost instead of unit flyaway or decrease them by using REC flyaway. Unit flyaway cost is the number normally used in discussions between Congress and DOD.
The costs are pure sticker price, fly away estimates for actual buys not LRIP costs.
ReplyDeleteincluding the developement costs, can askew the price up, way up, when the numbers of bought aircraft fall.
happened to the f-22, b-2, type45 destroyer, eurofighter etc etc
much better to say the f-35 cost $$$ to develope, then say each copy after costs $$$ to buy
woul you buy a ford F150 If they said hay the price to buy this is $90k, but in the small print it says you only have tp pay $30k, as the rest is developmental costs. I wouldn't!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteP-40 Exhibits are a budgeting tool and have been shown to be not reliable for predicting actual F-35 costs so far (they have been high). The F-35, to the consternation of its critics has refused to cost as much as the outside estimates predicted and continues to trend to most closely to LM's lower estimates. The numbers plugged into the P-40s reflect the inflated outside estimates and assumptions, and the 'estimated' portion that is not even on contract is about 95% versus actuals to date of about 5%. More than 85% of the cost estimates don't even have a FY program planned yet. When the predictions start coming true, then maybe we ought to give them credence, I say maybe, because it looks an awful lot like the government is trying to slow roll the program into making the outside cost predictions come true. See: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2509/643/1600/slash-and-whine.jpg
ReplyDeleteThe game is an old and sad one. The fearmongers are just raising the stakes
(worst typos corrected)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteForget these numbers - true F35 flyaway costs are around 200 million USD per aircraft:
ReplyDelete197 million USD F35A
237,7 million USD F35B
236,8 million USD F35C.