The above charts are from ELP blog, but before you holler guess what? He was the only one that had unit costs of the F-35 readily available. If you have contrary figures I'll gladly hear you out. The point is simple. For the cost of one F-35 at 220 million dollars we could have 22 Marine Personnel Carriers if they came in at 10 million dollars each. If you delayed the Marine Corps buy of the F-35 for 2 or 3 years you could complete your purchase of the vehicles and have them in service.
I seriously think we could pressure Lockheed Martin or BAE to come in substantially below 10 mill for their vehicles but that's just me. Consider though that the Amphibious Combat Vehicle is thought to be wanted at the price of 13 million or below per copy and you get the idea.
To further my argument below you'll find a copy of the Marine Corps budget broken down by item. Again, while the Marine Corps is extremely frugal you'll find one thing glaring at you like a whore in church.
Aviation expenditures.
I rest my case. The Marine Corps is becoming unbalanced and biased at an alarming rate in favor of its aviation assets at the expense of providing its infantrymen (really all of the Ground Combat and Logistics Elements...unless its aviation related) with protected transport. The only item that I could find that received what I consider out of balance funding was the Expeditionary Fire Support System...a system designed to fly in the back of the V-22.
The question must be asked. Is one airplane worth 51 Billion Dollars of the Marine Corps budget? How many Marine Personnel Carriers could that buy? How many Marine Infantry Battalions could that save? How many Marines would that allow to remain in service preserving combat experience in uniform? Even if you think I'm off base that's something to consider!
Er...if one F-35 is $220 million, and one MPC is $10 million, then you can buy 22 MPCs for the cost of one F-35, not just 12.
ReplyDeleteUnless you're planning on having each MPC contain a set of progressively smaller, cheaper MPCs, like a russian nesting doll. :P
sorry. thanks!
DeleteWell, well, well...Solomon is now AGAINST the F-35...the same plane he threatened me with death for being against.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes .
Deletethe joke is on me and the Marine Corps procurement planning office.
Will you apologize to Mr. Sweetman? And all the others you vilified?
Deletei seriously doubt it. i did it a post where i said they were right and that's about as far as i'll go. why? do you expect me to genuflect and make a massive public display of contrition? if you are, sorry to tell ya but it ain't happening. besides. i still believe in STOVL, i think the F-35 is a decent airplane. i just don't like the price. but i could swallow hard and roll with it if it wasn't killing other much more necessary programs that will affect the Marine Corps war fighting ability. so it isn't really an issue with begging Sweetman for forgiveness its more about HQMC having its priorities out of whack.
DeleteFolks like you did a lot of damage to Sweetman when he had to respond to your mudslinging in kind in order for you lot to understand the errors of your ways.
DeleteSweetman made his own bed. what do you want me to do? cry a river? what has changed is my view on the costs of the airplane. if you think this is a denunciation of the airplane then think again. its a slam at Marine leadership or lack thereof. battles were heated, he had support for his position and his next book will be a best seller. remember that he was once a supporter of the airplane and then became a vocal critic. i was a supporter (and if you read carefully still am) of the airplane but think that our procurement schedule is trash and that our buys should be delayed while we get our armor house in shape first. i haven't trashed the STOVL concept but i have bitched about us becoming aviation centric and i think the creation of the SPMAGTF-Crisis Response force bears that out. i've also taken a look at the V-22 and have come to the conclusion that its a capability that no longer fits with Marine or Navy strategy. anti-access means that a forcible entry will by necessity require Naval Forces to either roll back defenses so that a landing can be conducted or at the very least establish a corridor for landings. that means that you'll be able to get ships closer for the launch of both aircraft and assault vehicles. i'm consistent in my thinking. so again. no apologies, no genuflecting and no remorse.
DeleteSweetman damaged his own credibility. I don't see how Solomon owes Sweetman an apology at all.
DeleteWhether someone is a an avid fan of the F-35, or a rabid hater, everyone would agree that it can't afford to be rescheduled or put off any longer. it can't be delayed without killing it.
ReplyDeleteLong story short, the Marines have to stick to their plan, they can't abandon decades of support for a massive international program that is the biggest defense program in history because you want swimming APCs now, when they are still in the development phase anyway.
take a good look at the entire fiasco of replacing the AAV-7, and try honestly telling me, that this time would work because there is no F-35 in the picture, even though its been a failure that predates the JSF. What happens if the marines delayed the F-35, and it still took 10 years to procure an aav-7 replacement? who does that help? And don't give me some bull crap about how the "MPC is ready now!"
No its not. the MPC is about as "ready now" after its trials as the X-35 was after its contest. 2015 seems to be the number I am reading. so no you can't pay 10 million dollars now and get X many for the price of Y.
Why would we risk killing the JSF now to save money for an APC that won't be available for another 3 years? For as much as you bash Amos he has put "everything but readiness and the ACV" on the table for cuts. cuts for the F-35, V-22 and the H-1.
You are changing your position to fit a situation that doesn't jive with procurement reality.
Sorry but the MPC IS READY NOW...several armies use the Patria/Havoc today with great results...
DeleteThe JSF is not ready...it wount be fully ready for combat for the next 10 years...and by then you will have only an hand full and will still be flying the same airframes of today....
Don't you dare bring facts to this discussion. The USMC needs tankZ NOW DAMMITTT!! We can cancel the F-35 and do the program over when the Harriers start falling out of the sky. Of course it will be cheaper and better and stuff if we do that. Who needs aircover? Those swimming tanks will perform CAP and dognight better than the F-22. GODDAMMIT MOTHERF--KER!!!!!!
Delete(Some days it's almost painful to read the utter horse$hit this blog has become.)
a couple of things. first delaying the F-35 shouldn't kill it. i'm talking about 4 years and 24 aircraft. if taking 24 aircraft out of a 2200 plus airplane buy can kill it then it needs to die. second, the Marine Corps is a combined arms fighting unit. that means that the Amphibious Assault Vehicle is an important component to that warfighting capability. unfortunately we've reached a point where our prime infantry mover is now almost 50 years old. would you expect the US Army to go to war in M-48 Patton Tanks? it would be what you're asking the Marine Corps to do. The AAV is a Vietnam era vehicle. While we've made do with this vehicle the Army has gone through the M-113, the Bradley, the Stryker, the Styker DVH and is now developing the GCV. now tell me again which is needed more.
DeleteWell you are just insulting me...no facts on your end...
DeleteFact1:the MPC is ready now
Fact2-the JSF is not ready now
Fact3-How many will you have in 2025?the USMC will still be using legacy Hornets and Harriers
Fact4-The JSF cannot opperate from ships or ground bases that are not mod. to use it...How long to do so?The MPC could be joining the USMC right now...
Fact5-You are a little bitch...
Fact6-Will the F-35 be bought in enought numbers to be relevant?
It sure looks to me like everyone was fine with the JSF when we were still getting an MPC, but now that we can't have that toy, no one can have any toys until we get ours back.
DeleteIts extremely mature. right up to the cursing and name calling.
I have yet to see how:
A. Canceling the JSF saves any money (especially if the delay ends up costing more in the long run for aircraft, which also means less money for MPCs, or if the program collapses)
B. How the money "saved" by delaying JSF doesn't just go into other Air Wing applications, like more aircraft or SLEP for existing aircraft.
C. How with the Navy paying for a lot of the JSF, we get to take that blue money and spend it on green MPCs.
Its like that old saying, government taking money from the rich doesn't make you richer, just them poorer. please translate, beyond "F-35 cost!! warbarble!!1! to how canceling the JSF actually gets you the money to buy MPCs, rather than the money staying with the Navy or the wing.
Lets play a game. pretend half the JSF cost is absorbed by the navy, one quarter by the air wing. and only a quarter is left for the ground side. in that case delaying the JSf by one airframe doesn't get you 20 MPCs. it gets you 5, while increasing the cost of the JSF, and possible killing the program.
Its not a hard decision: you can have JSFs now and in the future get MPCs. Or you can have the JSF never, and get MPCs in a couple years. Lets think really hard...
first lets be clear. i haven't engaged in any profanity when it comes to discussing this issue in the comments section. i'm waiting for someone to convince me that i'm wrong. second you call the MPC a toy, i call it a much needed replacement for an antiquated weapon system that has served far too long. third, you're right. and i've admitted it. i was happy with the F-35 until i realized that we were getting played with the ACV replacement AND not getting the MPC. its not a few years we're talking about. its 10. the vehicles that are in the contest today won't even be in production then. what about the increased costs of that? i'll say again. 6 aircraft per year for the next 4 years is the production schedule for the F-35B. you're telling me that taking 24 aircraft out of those years and moving them to the outyears will kill the program????
Deletethink about what you're saying. then say it out loud. what you're basically saying is that if Congress does not fix sequestration then the F-35 will be canceled.
is that really what you're telling us? you're telling us all that this program which is already overbudget, behind schedule and still facing difficulty could be killed by pushing 24 aircraft to the out years?
just wow. does that even sound rational? you said lets think really hard, how about you do the same. as far as the MPC budget is concerned you're talking about less money, you're talking about work being done at the aviation facilities using those british harriers to upgrade what we have, you're talking about putting those airframes back to zero hours and you're talking about a program that can easily be put right back on track. hell by pushing back the buy of those 24 airplanes we might actually get them at a discount, supposedly the cost curve is bending down right?
how do you even zero time Marine F-18s, harriers, and Prowlers?
DeleteThe amount of JSFs aside, There are two questions:
1. How does delaying the JSF actually translate into MPCs? Show me how the funds would be sourced. Show me the diagram that specifically says the USMC can't get MPCs as a direct result of the LRIP JSFs.
2. Show me exactly how much money we are talking after the delay of the JSF.
simply saying "a JSF costs 200 million, so canceling it gets us 200 million worth of MPCs right?" is not the case. Funding doesn't work that way. No matter how much we kick and scream. We need to find out exactly how much funding we could get toward MPCs by delaying the JSF purchase in order to make informed decisions and actually weigh the pros and cons of what you propose, Sol.
Canceling X doesn't automatically free up funds for Y. Thats not me making up a wacky internet rules, its budgets and the procurement process, and in case anyone needed a reminder, Its not a simple funds transfer.
The cost curve is bending down, but someone has to bite the bullet up front on the F-35, which is why a lot of countries keep wanting to move to the back of the line and pay later. The JSF is vulnerable until it hits FRP. The entire thing hinges on everyone pulling their weight, and a constant slashing of airframes increases the price which encourages further slashing of airframes and so on.
"think about what you're saying. then say it out loud. what you're basically saying is that if Congress does not fix sequestration then the F-35 will be canceled."
Im not the only one saying that:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119876
Nuno, after your little list of 'facts', I find myself laughing at your expense. Your reply was childish, lacking in merit, and factually incorrect numerous times. That you somehow find justify outright hostility intermixed with factually incorrect statements is simply amazing. Bravo to you.
DeleteYou mean that i am wrong?
Delete-The Patria is still not used by any army?
-The JSF did enter service in 2012 like they said it would...oh waith...thats right
-Can the USMC replace is legacy air wing by 2030 with the F-35?
-Several publications stated that ships and airbases have to be mod. to operate the JSF...
-You also slammed Bill Sweetman...a man that writtes in AW magazine and co-autored books with Sir Bill Gunston...
Can you present facts and prove me wrong?
I've watched others point out the flaws in your arguments. Should we expect that to open your eyes? Most probably not. If you want to spout of a list of what I'll call opinions, then do so, but refrain from adding in statements like fact 5 'you are a little bitch'. That makes you seem childish, and not worth engaging in conversation with.
DeleteWhere exactly did I 'slam' Bill Sweetman?
The guy just call me motherfucker and i can say bitch?
Delete«Sweetman damaged his own credibility. I don't see how Solomon owes Sweetman an apology at all.»...yaeah...you said this
And its not opinions...its facts...every point i made is...facts , not opinions...
ass-Nuno Gomes
Work on your reading comprehension. He didn't call you 'motherfucker'.
DeleteYou are absolutely correct that I said that, but that is in no way a 'slam'. Sweetman damaged his credibility with his JSF reporting, and long before that, his amusing reporting on Aurora. Know your history. If stating an opinion is a 'slam', then everyone on this planet is guilty of 'slamming' something each time they speak their mind. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.
Continue to act in a childish manner, as I find it amusing and entertaining. By all means, entertain me some more.
How much of that 51 billion is actually paid for by the USMC and how much of it is actually paid for by the US Navy?
ReplyDeleteThe US Navy is buying less F-35s than the Marine Corps. Actually from what I've read, the Navy's F-35C is $199.4 million, which is the same price as 3 Super Hornets. The Navy has been wanting to pull out of the F-35 program for years and they feel trapped. There is also strong evidence that the tricked out Advanced Super Hornet, Boeing is proposing is just as good as the F-35C, but much cheaper. Read the Proceedings June 2013 issue article called "Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis."
DeleteI'm sorry andrew, that is not what I mean. it is not just the planes that say "NAVY" on the side, but even the airplanes that say "MARINES" on the side are paid for in large part, with Navy Money.
DeleteAll navy and Marine Aircraft fall under Navy Air Command. If you look at all of Sol's charts they say "NAVY" under funding, even for the F-35B.look at the link he provided for Eric's blog. it also says navy. Not Marine. Navy. There is no way on god's green earth that the USMC is paying 100 percent out of pocket for its aircraft. I know this because it has never happened before in the entire history of the USMC.
So how much is the Navy paying for each USMC F-35B/C? Don't kid yourself, the Navy is paying our bills in a big way with our fixed wing assets, just like they always have.
So again, how much of that "delayed JSF money" do the Marines actually get to play with?
I need a car. My dad says he will match every dollar I put in to help me get it. I put in 2K, he puts in 2K. I have 4K to spend. Then suddenly I change my mind and want to spend my money on hookers and booze. My dad withdraws his money. I now have 2K to spend. not 4K, 2K.
Same with the JSF. how much do we actually get to blow on the MPC when the Navy stops helping us?
until we answer that question, there is no way to calculate "how many MPCs we can buy for the cost of one JSF"
Lets look again with another asset. An America Class Assault Carrier. Those are 3.4 billion each. So imagine how many MPCs we could buy for that!! lets just cancel it, and take the Navies money and spend it on MPCs instead. That would work right?
Am I seriously the first person that mentioned navy support funding not translating to other USMC projects?