Boy do I wish I was born in time to be one of those guys. There's a book called Screaming Eagles about the pilots who built TOPGUN from the ground up and their experiences in the Vietnam War. They were complete badasses.
I fear for the Navy as it is now. There is a huge conflict in the Navy's budget. The F-35 is actually killing the Navy's new carrier: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2013/09/f-35-delays-throw-navys-43-billion.html
I thought for sure that if anything was going to hold its ground against the F-35 it would be the carrier budget. Frank Kendall said that he expects the Navy's current F-35 plan to not experience significant changes, which was a blow to Boeing's efforts to sell the Advanced Super Hornet to the Navy. What I'm hoping is that Frank Kendall's remarks meant that some change would happen, like the Navy buying a few more Super Hornets. I guess NAVAIR is locked into the F-35 against their will.
i'm going to say this and some will call it wishful thinking. i say it with the experience of being in a few fights.
you're seeing last gasp efforts here. if you've ever battled someone then you know that just before they capitulate they put forward a last effort, it might be furious, it seems like it comes from no where and from an outside observer it would appear to indicate that they're on the verge of overwhelming their opponent. that couldn't be further from the truth. the sad reality is that they're on the verge of total collapse.
that's how i see the F-35 program. they're fighting furiously to see it across the finish line but the reality of costs, the reality of budget realities in all member countries will see an outcome that no one will happily accept.
this program is already in a cost spiral and the only thing keeping it from being known to all is accounting gimicks.
this program is dead. there is no ifs ands or buts about it.
I hope you're right. What I'm really hoping for is that Congress is using the F-35 price hikes and sequestration as excuses to implement the Simpson-Bowles Plan and make cuts where they need to, but that would be giving them too much credit in my mind.
I guess we'll see next year where the Navy's really going. Next year is pretty much the Navy's last chance to extend the production line of the Super Hornet.
The main issue with budget problems is not with the DoD, but with Entitlement programs eating up the non-discretionary funds. What this has caused is fights among DoD programs as to where to spend what money is left.
If the F-35 does die, it won’t be from its own making, but from budget pressures unrelated to the program. It is still the largest DoD program and would remain the target of any budget cuts. The F-35 would face the same budget pressures, even if it met its original cost predictions. It would just hang on a little longer.
That being said, most of the news coming out of the F-35 program of late, especially related to budget, has been better than expected. This is especially true of the lifetime O&S cost predictions.
The Danish recently restated their commitment to the F-35 and Canada will likely do the same, especially when the new O&S figures are made official. Too bad the official O&S figures were not available for the Korean competition; it likely would have made a difference.
i've noticed that is the current talking points for supporters of the program. its also only partly true.
the US defense budget is quite sufficient. the problem is an airplane that has ballooned in costs and is over 500% over what it was originally promised to cost. we can play the game of going back in time...not to the beginning but to the middle of the program when it was reset and claim success but again. that's a lie. i'm not against the F-35 for any other reason except that it just costs too damn much.
the Marine Corps would be able to easily afford the F-35 if it came in at projections. but it didn't and now the entire Marine Corps is being endangered because of the costs of this plane.\
before the F-35, no one questioned the utility of STOVL aircraft.
now. everyone is.
its all because the F-35 is blowing up the ENTIRE PENTAGON BUDGET. the SECDEF has admitted as much. that bastard we call a Commandant has admitted as much.
the sickest point about this whole thing? we've cancelled programs that didn' begin to burn through cash the way the F-35 has and we did it without blinking but we have to die in a ditch over the F-35????
i don't think so.
stealth is a disease. we have never produced a stealth airplane that is affordable. the B-2 was truncated because of cost. same with the F-22. the SAME will happen with the F-35.
stealth is a tech that is not capable of being successfully mass produced at this time. its just not possible. the USAF will have aluminum airplanes for a long while longer. and that's just the facts.
According to the latest SAR (Dec’12, page 70 & 73), the PAUC has gone up 68% from the original 2001 (contract award) estimate for the airframe and has no significant change for the engine.
The overall procurement has gone up more than that, but nowhere over a 100% increase.
you're so full of shit it hurts. what was the original cost estimate of the airplane? what is the cost today (not fucking projected, how much does the motherfuker cost now???) you do the math.
Are you are comparing the projected average lifetime procurement cost of a F-35 in 2001 to a single-year LRIP cost in 2013?
btw, According to the Dec'12 SAR, the cost for the cost projections for the F-35 actually went DOWN vs the Dec'11 SAR. The Dec'13 SAR will likely show the same.
No, SpudmanWP. What was the LM projection for the jet to cost at this time when they sold the idea to the DoD? What was the jet supposed to cost now? What was the price range that convinced the DoD that this was going to be a good idea? Not only that, but where were we originally supposed to be in the F-35's production life at this time? How many warplanes should we have right now if this program had gone according to the plan that the DoD initially bought into? When were these planes supposed to be fully functional combat-ready aircraft?
No F-35 supporter that actually knows their shit will answer any of these questions truthfully because they make the program look awful. By the way, I already have the numbers for these but I'm going to wait and see what you respond with.
LM did not “sell” the idea to the DoD. It was the DoD that came to LM after they won the contest and contracted for a price. At that point in 2001, the projected PAUC (per the 2012 SAR, page 70) was $74.6 million in Fy2012 dollars (less engine). It is now (again, per the SAR) estimated to be $108.2 (a rise of 68%). That is an apples-to-apples comparison and not based on some off-hand comment in an article, some wishful thinking, or a comment based on unknown FY Dollars.
Production life, schedule, etc are obviously dependent on SDD but it is the program cost (not a single year in its lifetime) that we are looking at. Btw, one of the major reasons that the lifetime build rate costs went up is that the DoD decided to lower the annual F-35A build rate from 120 to 80 airframes.
Trying to look back at the original schedule for SDD or production is meaningless for a cost comparison since SWAT and Congress gutted the LRIP/FRP schedules. The DoD demanded concurrency, LM based its pricing on it, then the DoD backed away from it.
Even comparing the LRIP cost today with the average projected cost over its lifetime, the APUC FY2014 F-35A is 199% over the 2001 average, not “over 500%”
To answer you question: According to the original 2001 schedule, they should have built 110 F-35As in FY2014 for TY $60 mil each. (sorry I said 120 before, it was 110).
By FY2014 they would have ordered 516.
IOC was to be FY2011 for USAF. However, this was either Block2 or IOT&E was to happen at the same time as development as Blk3 was not due out of SDD until FY2012
So you are comparing vague concept desires, ignoring what was actually requested & competed, and then comparing that to what is today's LRIP price.... and then blaming the program for it????
SpudmanWP it's pretty obvious to everyone that you are full of shit and that you are now using the tactic of trying to put words in the mouth of your opponents because it's pretty damn obvious you're losing this debate. I just can't do this anymore. The F-35A is now about $153.1 million, the F-35C is $199.4 million, and the F-35B is now $196.5 million. Those numbers come from the official Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Force Budget Estimates of FY2013. This is embarrassing and you know it. You are completely full of bullshit.
PAUC went from $81M at Oct 2001 start to $161M in the March 2012 approved baseline. That's doubling. And that's if the hit the March 2012 estimates, which they will not.
Also F-35 procurement has been delayed because of development problems and spiraling costs. It is absurd to blame costs on reduced procurement rates when the problem is the other way around.
The idea of high rate production earlier was vetoed by no one less than Venlet himself, in the infamous quote about retrofit costs taking your breath away. Do you really think Venlet didn't understand the cost implications of lower rate production? He did and the retrofit costs were so high that not even the head of the F-35 program could push higher production rates as an option.
The cost of the F-35 is also not coming down. For one thing, every year more countries do more SLEPs and new procurement solely because LockMart and the Pentagon bungled development so badly. All of those costs are directly the result of the F-35 program's failure and should be included in the F-35 program.
For another thing, the 8% cost reduction being trumpeted recently is just because they let LockMart off the hook for retrofit costs. LockMart will mass produce jets with known issues, claim the cost reduction as a huge PR victory, and then get the 8% and more back later with higher retrofit costs. The F-35 design is nowhere near stable and that means high retrofit costs and lessened learning curve effects, which bring us to . . .
When you total up the procurement dollars spent per aircraft, the F-35 cost is actually going up, not down. The hard fact is that we have yet to see an F-35 come off the line that is cheaper than an incremental F-22 would have been nor will we in the next few years.
If you want to climb in the Way Way Back machine and travel to a mystical time called the 90's, all versions of the then JSF were supposed to be well under 50mil a copy. The USMC version was highest IRCC at the low-40s, followed by the Navy variant, then the Air Force version in the mid-30's.
It was supposed to be the stealth version of the F-15/F-16 hi-lo concept with thousands of JSF supporting hundreds of F22s. Man, did they miss the mark.
THANK YOU!!!! and that was during a time of REAL NICE budgets. but what continues to rankle is the claim that STOVL is the cause.
even during this time the issue with STEALTH couldn't be overcome. it was and IS fabulously expensive. STOVL is a basic engineering problem. the issue of developing enough thrust and balancing it properly to lift an airplane into the air without relying on any lift except what is provided by the engines.
stealth starts heading toward art. shapes and material all blended together to reflect radar waves? from all angles? its almost head into the realm of magic. but seriously. its so hard its crazy expensive.
That was one of the first movies (due to technological advances) to put cameras inside and outside the aircraft to shoot those scenes.
ReplyDeleteIn the Top Gun documnentray they said they put the camera on top of a mountain and had the aircraft fly around and over it.
It still holds up well, because of the lack of computer generated imagery.
Boy do I wish I was born in time to be one of those guys. There's a book called Screaming Eagles about the pilots who built TOPGUN from the ground up and their experiences in the Vietnam War. They were complete badasses.
ReplyDeleteI fear for the Navy as it is now. There is a huge conflict in the Navy's budget. The F-35 is actually killing the Navy's new carrier: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2013/09/f-35-delays-throw-navys-43-billion.html
I thought for sure that if anything was going to hold its ground against the F-35 it would be the carrier budget. Frank Kendall said that he expects the Navy's current F-35 plan to not experience significant changes, which was a blow to Boeing's efforts to sell the Advanced Super Hornet to the Navy. What I'm hoping is that Frank Kendall's remarks meant that some change would happen, like the Navy buying a few more Super Hornets. I guess NAVAIR is locked into the F-35 against their will.
i'm going to say this and some will call it wishful thinking. i say it with the experience of being in a few fights.
Deleteyou're seeing last gasp efforts here. if you've ever battled someone then you know that just before they capitulate they put forward a last effort, it might be furious, it seems like it comes from no where and from an outside observer it would appear to indicate that they're on the verge of overwhelming their opponent. that couldn't be further from the truth. the sad reality is that they're on the verge of total collapse.
that's how i see the F-35 program. they're fighting furiously to see it across the finish line but the reality of costs, the reality of budget realities in all member countries will see an outcome that no one will happily accept.
this program is already in a cost spiral and the only thing keeping it from being known to all is accounting gimicks.
this program is dead. there is no ifs ands or buts about it.
I hope you're right. What I'm really hoping for is that Congress is using the F-35 price hikes and sequestration as excuses to implement the Simpson-Bowles Plan and make cuts where they need to, but that would be giving them too much credit in my mind.
DeleteI guess we'll see next year where the Navy's really going. Next year is pretty much the Navy's last chance to extend the production line of the Super Hornet.
The main issue with budget problems is not with the DoD, but with Entitlement programs eating up the non-discretionary funds. What this has caused is fights among DoD programs as to where to spend what money is left.
DeleteIf the F-35 does die, it won’t be from its own making, but from budget pressures unrelated to the program. It is still the largest DoD program and would remain the target of any budget cuts. The F-35 would face the same budget pressures, even if it met its original cost predictions. It would just hang on a little longer.
That being said, most of the news coming out of the F-35 program of late, especially related to budget, has been better than expected. This is especially true of the lifetime O&S cost predictions.
The Danish recently restated their commitment to the F-35 and Canada will likely do the same, especially when the new O&S figures are made official. Too bad the official O&S figures were not available for the Korean competition; it likely would have made a difference.
i've noticed that is the current talking points for supporters of the program. its also only partly true.
Deletethe US defense budget is quite sufficient. the problem is an airplane that has ballooned in costs and is over 500% over what it was originally promised to cost. we can play the game of going back in time...not to the beginning but to the middle of the program when it was reset and claim success but again. that's a lie. i'm not against the F-35 for any other reason except that it just costs too damn much.
the Marine Corps would be able to easily afford the F-35 if it came in at projections. but it didn't and now the entire Marine Corps is being endangered because of the costs of this plane.\
before the F-35, no one questioned the utility of STOVL aircraft.
now. everyone is.
its all because the F-35 is blowing up the ENTIRE PENTAGON BUDGET. the SECDEF has admitted as much. that bastard we call a Commandant has admitted as much.
the sickest point about this whole thing? we've cancelled programs that didn' begin to burn through cash the way the F-35 has and we did it without blinking but we have to die in a ditch over the F-35????
i don't think so.
stealth is a disease. we have never produced a stealth airplane that is affordable. the B-2 was truncated because of cost. same with the F-22. the SAME will happen with the F-35.
stealth is a tech that is not capable of being successfully mass produced at this time. its just not possible. the USAF will have aluminum airplanes for a long while longer. and that's just the facts.
Where did you get 500% from?
DeleteAccording to the latest SAR (Dec’12, page 70 & 73), the PAUC has gone up 68% from the original 2001 (contract award) estimate for the airframe and has no significant change for the engine.
The overall procurement has gone up more than that, but nowhere over a 100% increase.
you're so full of shit it hurts. what was the original cost estimate of the airplane? what is the cost today (not fucking projected, how much does the motherfuker cost now???) you do the math.
DeleteAre you are comparing the projected average lifetime procurement cost of a F-35 in 2001 to a single-year LRIP cost in 2013?
Deletebtw, According to the Dec'12 SAR, the cost for the cost projections for the F-35 actually went DOWN vs the Dec'11 SAR. The Dec'13 SAR will likely show the same.
No, SpudmanWP. What was the LM projection for the jet to cost at this time when they sold the idea to the DoD? What was the jet supposed to cost now? What was the price range that convinced the DoD that this was going to be a good idea? Not only that, but where were we originally supposed to be in the F-35's production life at this time? How many warplanes should we have right now if this program had gone according to the plan that the DoD initially bought into? When were these planes supposed to be fully functional combat-ready aircraft?
ReplyDeleteNo F-35 supporter that actually knows their shit will answer any of these questions truthfully because they make the program look awful. By the way, I already have the numbers for these but I'm going to wait and see what you respond with.
LM did not “sell” the idea to the DoD. It was the DoD that came to LM after they won the contest and contracted for a price. At that point in 2001, the projected PAUC (per the 2012 SAR, page 70) was $74.6 million in Fy2012 dollars (less engine). It is now (again, per the SAR) estimated to be $108.2 (a rise of 68%). That is an apples-to-apples comparison and not based on some off-hand comment in an article, some wishful thinking, or a comment based on unknown FY Dollars.
DeleteProduction life, schedule, etc are obviously dependent on SDD but it is the program cost (not a single year in its lifetime) that we are looking at. Btw, one of the major reasons that the lifetime build rate costs went up is that the DoD decided to lower the annual F-35A build rate from 120 to 80 airframes.
Trying to look back at the original schedule for SDD or production is meaningless for a cost comparison since SWAT and Congress gutted the LRIP/FRP schedules. The DoD demanded concurrency, LM based its pricing on it, then the DoD backed away from it.
Even comparing the LRIP cost today with the average projected cost over its lifetime, the APUC FY2014 F-35A is 199% over the 2001 average, not “over 500%”
To answer you question:
DeleteAccording to the original 2001 schedule, they should have built 110 F-35As in FY2014 for TY $60 mil each. (sorry I said 120 before, it was 110).
By FY2014 they would have ordered 516.
IOC was to be FY2011 for USAF. However, this was either Block2 or IOT&E was to happen at the same time as development as Blk3 was not due out of SDD until FY2012
yuo have to go back earlier than that during the concept stage and the money talk then. the plane was suppose to be affordable and its anything but.
Deleteits busting the damn budget and you know it.
So you are comparing vague concept desires, ignoring what was actually requested & competed, and then comparing that to what is today's LRIP price.... and then blaming the program for it????
DeleteSpudmanWP it's pretty obvious to everyone that you are full of shit and that you are now using the tactic of trying to put words in the mouth of your opponents because it's pretty damn obvious you're losing this debate. I just can't do this anymore. The F-35A is now about $153.1 million, the F-35C is $199.4 million, and the F-35B is now $196.5 million. Those numbers come from the official Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Force Budget Estimates of FY2013. This is embarrassing and you know it. You are completely full of bullshit.
DeletePAUC went from $81M at Oct 2001 start to $161M in the March 2012 approved baseline. That's doubling. And that's if the hit the March 2012 estimates, which they will not.
ReplyDeleteAlso F-35 procurement has been delayed because of development problems and spiraling costs. It is absurd to blame costs on reduced procurement rates when the problem is the other way around.
The idea of high rate production earlier was vetoed by no one less than Venlet himself, in the infamous quote about retrofit costs taking your breath away. Do you really think Venlet didn't understand the cost implications of lower rate production? He did and the retrofit costs were so high that not even the head of the F-35 program could push higher production rates as an option.
The cost of the F-35 is also not coming down. For one thing, every year more countries do more SLEPs and new procurement solely because LockMart and the Pentagon bungled development so badly. All of those costs are directly the result of the F-35 program's failure and should be included in the F-35 program.
For another thing, the 8% cost reduction being trumpeted recently is just because they let LockMart off the hook for retrofit costs. LockMart will mass produce jets with known issues, claim the cost reduction as a huge PR victory, and then get the 8% and more back later with higher retrofit costs. The F-35 design is nowhere near stable and that means high retrofit costs and lessened learning curve effects, which bring us to . . .
When you total up the procurement dollars spent per aircraft, the F-35 cost is actually going up, not down. The hard fact is that we have yet to see an F-35 come off the line that is cheaper than an incremental F-22 would have been nor will we in the next few years.
If you want to climb in the Way Way Back machine and travel to a mystical time called the 90's, all versions of the then JSF were supposed to be well under 50mil a copy. The USMC version was highest IRCC at the low-40s, followed by the Navy variant, then the Air Force version in the mid-30's.
ReplyDeleteIt was supposed to be the stealth version of the F-15/F-16 hi-lo concept with thousands of JSF supporting hundreds of F22s. Man, did they miss the mark.
THANK YOU!!!! and that was during a time of REAL NICE budgets. but what continues to rankle is the claim that STOVL is the cause.
Deleteeven during this time the issue with STEALTH couldn't be overcome. it was and IS fabulously expensive. STOVL is a basic engineering problem. the issue of developing enough thrust and balancing it properly to lift an airplane into the air without relying on any lift except what is provided by the engines.
stealth starts heading toward art. shapes and material all blended together to reflect radar waves? from all angles? its almost head into the realm of magic. but seriously. its so hard its crazy expensive.