Check this out from the Ottawa Business Journal.
After a year of bad press following the federal government’s botched estimate of how much it would cost to procure 65 of the stealth planes, officials from Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney hosted a telephone press conference to refute perceptions of cost overruns and noting the involvement of several Canadian firms – including Ottawa-based GasTops – on the project.Great news.
Steve O’Bryan, vice-president of F-35 programs at Lockheed Martin, said the jets have undergone a 50 per cent price reduction compared to five years ago, and estimated that each plane will cost $67 million by 2020.
But it just adds fuel to my argument that the USMC should delay purchase till 2020 and divert funds to the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and Marine Personnel Carrier Programs.
The F-35 will be a winner but we can afford a capability gap until the costs go down and besides...in my opinion getting the Marine Corps armor in shape is a much more pressing matter.
We're at a point where the F-35 isn't in danger of being canceled. It will be built. Can we say the same about the ACV and MPC? If we can't then they should become our number one priorities.
But isn't the projected cost curve predicated on buyers not deferring or delaying the buys?
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly.
DeleteThis will have a major impact on the u.k, plus any others using the B variant...
uh....sorry. the UK was willing to trash the Marine Corps without thought with the switch to the C...i see no need to make them heroes because they switched back to the B. additionally the idea is for the USMC, just like the UK to do what is necessary for it to be a viable force for the defense of its individual country. its my belief that the USMC MUST get its armored vehicle house in order. it must get the ACV and MPC up and going. if that means that we delay the F-35B then i see that as a small price to pay....additionally we'll get the airplanes cheaper? win-win.
DeleteThe first thing to remember is that every LockMart projection of F-35 cost has been wrong and low, so counting on $67M isn't a smart play.
ReplyDeleteThe second thing is that, while the F-35 will not be cancelled it is still vulnerable to the death spiral that has afflicted every stealth aircraft that has actually made it into production. As more and more countries decide they can only afford the last, cheapest jets production volume goes down and costs go up for everyone. The bottom line is that planned production volumes are not economically viable nor sustainable given flight costs; no one is ever actually going to get those last, cheap F-35s.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCompletely False. Each LRIP batch to-date has come in within the margin of error high or low of their cost-curve predictions. Where it came in slightly higher could have been attributed solely to the Customer's change to the quantity buy between the time of the prediction and the order. LM's predictions have been far closer than any outside estimate, including the B.S. CAPE numbers, which have all been proven to be way to high so far. The only cost estimate where LM can said to have missed the target was for system development and demonstration. Those costs have risen as much because the Customer chose to trade increased cost for reduced risk by stretching the development effort as anything else, including the weight reduction redesign.
DeleteI don't see the need for the MPC especially with the vast number of Strykers out there. I know the MPC is supposed to swim, then why an AAV and MPC. The Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps are niche forces - too much overlap. Don't get me wrong we need both, but on these numbers. If I had my way the Corps would be the active componet land forces and the Army Guard would be the reserve componet with mostly armor, but nobobdy gives a flying F what I think.
ReplyDeleteThat's good news on the F-35, but that's a significant drop from the recent estimates - why so?
This new price estimate seems to make a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteRight now, an F-35 has a cost of between $120 million (F-35A) and $155 million (F-35C) but only around 50 F-35's have been built. When only 50 Super Hornets had been built they cost $145 million compared to their current cost of $60 million. If the F-35 follows the same path, it should cost around $57 million by 2031.
Only if we get a Grunt Commandant. Amos just care about shiny toys for the Airwing to play with but fuck the grunts on the ground. If the Corps wants to save money Cut all Non Combat Support MOS. Band, presidents helo unit all the Fluff shit like 8th & I.
ReplyDeleteGive those wired POG jobs like combat foto and JAG shit to the Navy. Pour money into a new AAV.
you bring up a good point but one that leadership doesn't want to touch. the Marine Corps has become tail heavy. once the USMC had the best tooth to tail ratio in the Western military. i think the Royal Marines have that honor now. we need to lose MANY support jobs and give them back to the Navy.
DeleteIs it customary to include the engines in the cost of the airframe?
ReplyDeleteno. not for the US. engines are separate.
DeleteSol is correct. Since even before the development of jet engines, the US Government has managed the engine programs as separate acquisition efforts. Sometimes if makes sense. Sometimes not at all.
Delete