William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. He took the time to write an article for the Huffington Post that basically tracks with many of the things I've been saying. Check this out....
This is not to suggest that rolling back the F-35 will be easy, just that it is possible. There's no question that the Air Force brass are committed to the F-35 as the plane of the future, but that is not the case for the Navy -- in the short-term the service could do as well or better with upgraded F-18s while a workable alternative to the F-35 is developed. The A-10 attack plane is far better at close air support of troops than the F-35 will ever be, and there is a strong Congressional constituency in favor of keeping the A-10 over the objections of the Air Force. And as the price of the F-35 rises, there has been grumbling among allied nations involved in the program, with a number of them postponing or cutting their buys of the plane.I hope you're paying attention to whats happening here.
First, Lockheed Martin, the Program Office and the DoD have lost control of the message with the F-35. More and more Think Tanks are saying that the plane is a decent idea which has been executed poorly....and needs to be canned or drastically cut back.
More importantly they've identified that the US Navy is in SHOCK over the cost of the airplane and don't support it....And the reason for that shock is the thing that has me punching walls. The plane is just too damn expensive and is ruining the budgets of not only the USMC but those of our allies as well.
Message control for the program has been lost. More and more people are speaking out against the plane. An alliance between Liberals, Deficit Hawks and people sincerely interested in preserving our nation's defense is finally starting to push back against this glowing example of Waste, Fraud and Abuse.
I couldn't be happier.
"And as the price of the F-35 rises..."
ReplyDeleteThat's a key fact that runs counter to the JPO/LM phoney propaganda that the unit cost is dropping, and that if only impressionable foreign countries fall in line and buy more faulty prototypes the unit cost will drop further and faster.
That's baloney. The F-35 unit procurement cost has been rising and with over a hundred planes produced there is no learning curve left. The F-35A unit procurement cost is now $185 million, with the B&C much more. This is for a system which is still being promoted to be at a competitive unit procurement cost with legacy aircraft, in the $60-80m range. The F-35 left that PR story long ago, and isn't coming back. The plane itself is full of faults, starting with the engine and including frame cracks, long software delays and poor performance.
This year 2015 is critical because the Pentagon has gone full-out for a "ramp-up" in prototype production ostensibly to reduce unit cost. We know that's not possible. So what they really want to do is to lock buyers into a failed program in hopes of saving it. Solomon "gets it," and he needs your support and mine. Please do what you can to kill this turkey by getting the truth out.
What the fuck.
DeleteIts not rising and in comparison to Rafale it looks good.
Most recent F-35 costs per plane, as actually paid by the US goverment (LIRP-8)
http://www.janes.com/article/46129/pentagon-finalises-f-35-lrip-8-contract
>F-35A: 94.8 mill
>F-35B: 102 mill
>F-35C: 115.7 mill
plus engines at 21.9 million apiece, gives us:
>F-35A: 116.7 mill total cost
>F-35B: 123.9 mill total cost
>F-35C: 137.6 mill total cost
Compared to Rafale (inferior 4.5gen tech, 209 mill per plane as of latest Brazilian proposal, not including maint. or parts) and Typhoon (4.5gen, about 100mill per plane), the F-35 CURRENTLY looks excellent, as it's not even receiving full mass production bonuses to unit price and it's capabilities are superi
are you sure that the F-35 is superior? it has all those sensors inside the plane instead of pods but those sensors are 10 years old while those planes you named carry the best currently available. additionally how good is the stealth? we just don't know. what we do know is that everyone is working to crack the code and be able to detect it at long range. we also know that some commander in Kosovo was able to knock one out the sky and just set up a classic ambush to do it.
Deleteyour enthusiasm is good BUT the pentagon is using all kinds of accounting nonsense to arrive at a price. nothing is clear about this program and i'm of the belief that they've initially made it fuzzy to lie to the masses. we'll now more when we see what the allies do. if they go all in and make the full projected buy...if they don't then we know that what i suspect is true.
the bastards at JPO and Lockheed Martin are lying there asses off.
Rafale is not 209 mil total cost.
DeleteIt 12 bil USD for 126 units (Indian offer) Only ToT, when asked for add an extra cost. Lockheed Martin transfers no strategic technology to foreign clients.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi,
Delete2013 figures, EURUSD today
Rafale B, biplace armée de l’air : ---- 74 M€ TTC ----- 61.87 M€ HT --- 71.52 M$
Rafale C, monoplace Armée de l’air : -- 68.8 M€ TTC --- 57.52 M€ HT --- 66.49 M$
Rafale M, monoplace marine : ---------- 79 M€ TTC ----- 66.05 M€ HT --- 76.36 M$
TTC = including VAT
HT = without
biplace = two-seater
monoplace = one-seater
armée de l'air ~ USAF
marine ~ NAVY
And Rafale has 2 engines...
http://www.portail-aviation.com/2013/12/le-veritable-prix-du-rafale-par-version.html
EDIT to improve format!
Thx for citing us Gabriel ;)
Deleteim no expert in inflation. But as i remember the F-14 in the 70ties cost 40mil$ price a jet. Now if someone ajust this 40mils to current dollars how much would they be ?
ReplyDeleteAnd remember the F-14 was more advanced and complex compared with the F-15 when both entered service.
But, didn't the F-14 actually work? Even given its maintanance issues and its troubled turbofans? Everything I've read suggested it would have worked in the outer air battle, and that it worked well as an interceptor and fleet defender.
DeleteIn addition, despite all its advances, the Tomcat took something like 7 years from RFP to wheels on carrier deck, IIRC.
The F-35 is going to be looking at a 20 year development cycle. All during that time radar technology will improve, as will the processing power behind the radars. Couple that with the EA against our missiles that the Chinese and Russians are said to be working on, and I think that the Lightning II's BVR advantage that I've heard people tout is going to melt away.
It's about $175M in 2014 dollars.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the F-35 isn't going anywhere. Take a look at the LCS program, which is getting more money to salvage it instead of cutting it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/money/2015/01/12/lockheed-martin-monitors-cost-revamps-lcs-program/21651837/
Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for littoral combat ships built at Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette. The Department of Defense recently said it will modify the littoral combat ship to increase survivability, versatility and armament, rather than drop the program.
The cost of the redesigned ships, known as the small surface combatant, isn't yet known, she said.
That's likely to be hashed out in the next several months as Lockheed Martin works with the Navy.
you very well could be right but the battle must be fought or its lost before its begun. i don't know where that meme came from but this fatalistic vision that the F-35 program cannot be killed is pure hogwash in my opinion.
Deletethe USMC said the same thing about the EFV. it died. the same type of arrogance was on display with the FCS and Comanche. they both got canceled.
between tight budgets, deficit hawks, liberals, and people that despise wasteful spending this program is under the type of pressure that was unbelievable just a few months ago.
its going down and when it does I have some real nice scotch i've saved to celebrate. I'm gonna setup a skype so all the good guys can get together and raise a glass from different parts of the world
it sem your criticism of F35 already got some of you in the crosshair ..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25623
Whilst I acknowledge the basement dwellers ( I.e. Eric Palmer, Solomon, Don Bacon etc...) have zero chance of influencing any acquisition decisions (despite their dreams), they do cause other journalists and insignificant politicians (as we have recently seen in Australia) to publish utter garbage such as this: http://www.news.com.au/technology/the-1 ... 6950254330
I AM SO PROUD!!! my critics make me stronger...and pass along my message. and they said we had no influence in this fight!
Deletei never read them , i just found that thread from googling F35 supporter and detractor.. when i browse tha thread. , it lack a discussion on facts and reasonable argument, and more like a thread of personal attacks against certain people here..
DeleteLOL I appears I got pulled in too for my comment about F-16.net being a self-reinforcing circlejerk or something like that. I should copy and paste it from that thread since they took the time to view Sol's website, copy and paste my comment, and repost it on theirs.
Delete"F-16.net is a giant echo chamber where 5 prominent posters continuously engage in self-reinforcing circle jerking with a level of endurance that would make a puberty-stricken 12 year old weep with a crippling penile fracture"
I stand by my words, and dont take a single fucking thing back.
Pitiful. Apparently what I said struck a nerve with them.
Apparently "magoodotcom" has a hard time understanding the term "irony", and "pot meet kettle" since
1.) I dont agree with Solomon and other posters about everything
2.) other posters dont agree with Solomon and others about everything
3.) the comment was in response to the behavior on their end (go ahead, try saying good things about the A10 or F16 sometime, for example). In other words, fix your shit before you try to use "hypocrisy" as an excuse to deflect and toss the red herring.
I mean, for fuck's sake, they take the time to stalk this place, yet missed the back and forth between the M113 vs stryker, airborne armor vs not airborne armor, etc etc. Hilarious.
Then the personal attacks, accusing "12 year old penises as appealing to Sol" and calling him a fake marine and "retarded".
Let the butthurt flow. They must not like you over there, thats all I can say.
(and before any of you dillweeds that stalk this site from that morass of stale piss want to lift my comments again, try choking yourselves first)
i agree they must be stalking here a bit too much , heck they even include SlowMan in their thread.. but it seem they only pick up names whose opinion antagonized them.. and the hate toward mr kopp / APA is rather telling there..
DeleteI find it AMAZING that the F35 has gathered this much controversy, such a ripe environment for personal attacks, mudslinging, and shiving the messenger. If I didn't know any better, one would mistake the F35 shitstorm for a hot topic like "gun control", "abortion", "states rights", or "the Iraq war". or "gamersgate".
DeletePass the popcorn.
As F-35 Production Ramps Up, So Do Unit Costs
ReplyDeleteby Don Bacon, December 6, 2014 (& updated)
The F-35 has a cost problem, and the program's executive officer General Bogdan of the Joint Program Office (JPO) recognizes it. How to reduce production unit cost? There is, as is usual in any program, an effort to reduce manufacturing costs by improving procedures. But eighty percent of any reduction, Bogdan says, must come from economy of scale, which means that production quantities must be increased or "ramped up."
Bogdan has said that the current annual production of about forty aircraft prototypes is slated to increase to 57 aircraft in Lot 9, 74 aircraft in Lot 10 and 119 aircraft in Lot 11. So the number of aircraft being purchased is set to double over the next three years and triple over the next five years. As a part of this effort, Bogdan has said that there would be a multiyear(MY) procurement in the summer of 201. A MY buy would require Congressional approval, and actually it is illegal because the design is not frozen but that probably wouldn't stop them.
What is the current unit production cost of the Air Force variant, the F-35A?
On April 8, 2014 as reported by ReutersJPO's DellaVedova : "Defense contracts include the price for more items than just the cost of the aircraft. These items may include costs such as spare parts, flight simulators, tooling, support equipment, and manpower to maintain the aircraft. To derive the accurate cost of the aircraft, it is necessary to remove those additional items from the total and divide the recurring aircraft costs by the quantity in each lot."
But that's incorrect. The procurement cost according to the DOD Acquisition Glossary: "Equal to the sum of the procurement cost for prime mission equipment, the procurement cost for support items, and the procurement cost for initial spares."
So we go to DOD data:
ReplyDeletePROGRAM ACQUISITION COST BY WEAPON SYSTEM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
p. 1-7 USAF F-35A
$Millions
procurement + spares
FY2014 LRIP- 8
$3,355.9 + $172.8 = $3,528.7 for 19 = $185.7
This chart from the Pentagon Comptroller illustrates the same thing, a procurement unit cost of $185.7 million. Wow, that's a lot, and much higher than Bogdan's $112 million which he provides no basis for. It's a wish, not a cost.
Can an air force use one plane? No. Four planes are needed in an attack formation according to the US Air Force. So that's four times 185. We can't depend on all four planes to be operable. The F-35 has 300,000 parts and 8 million software code lines so let's get eight planes. Now we're up to one point four billion. That's not the entire cost. Sustainment for this system is about three times the original procurement cost. It will require fuel and maintenance, especially maintenance for this complex system. The Pentagon has already started depot maintenance provisions, and the production decision is still four years off. Now we're up to six billion dollars, just to get started. Who can afford the F-35?
So the unit procurement cost of the F-35A in 2014 is $185.7 million. This is up ten percent from the previous year using the same table, so costs are actually increasing with time! Now let's look at how this cost might be decreased, if possible by significantly increased production and a multiyear buy.
In fact the best evidence that increasing production rates would not decrease unit cost is the F-35 program itself, with the recent ten percent increase being entirely consistent with previous experience as F-35 production costs have increased as production has been ramped up by a factor of twenty over half a dozen years.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 unit cost of $86 million rose sixty percent to $137 milllion between 2005 and 2012 according to this General Accounting office report (Appendix I). The present F-35A unit cost of $185 million is almost three times the original 2001 $69 million cost estimate. The same GAO report (p.25) included a Pentagon study that F-35 unit costs would further increase 6-19% under any procurement plan.
"To better understand the potential impacts on prices from changes in quantities, OSD’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office did a sensitivity analysis to forecast impacts on F-35 average procurement unit costs assuming various quantities purchased by the United States and international partners. For example, if the United States bought its full quantity of 2,443 aircraft and the partners did not buy any aircraft, CAPE calculated that the average unit cost would increase by 6 percent. If the United States bought 1,500 aircraft and the partners bought their expected quantity of 697, unit costs would rise by 9 percent. If the United States bought 1,500 and the partners 0, unit costs would rise 19 percent."
Similarly, a GAO Report in 2008 on multiyear procurement was not optimistic about multiyear buy cost reductions.
" It is difficult to precisely determine the impact of multiyear contracting on procurement costs. GAO studies of three recent MYPs identified unit cost growth ranging from 10 to 30 percent compared to original estimates, due to changes in labor and material costs, requirements and funding, and other factors. In some cases, actual MYP costs were higher than estimates for annual contracts. Although annual contracts also have unit cost growth, it is arguably more problematic for MYP’s because of the up-front investments and the government’s exposure to risk over multiple years."
Finally, let's look more closely at the intended production ramp-up. The Pentagon intends to assemble five prototype production lots in the next nine months, including 117 foreign prototypes. (Recently it took the Pentagon nearly a year to put together the Lot 8 prototype production lot with fourteen foreign planes.)
Of the eight foreign JSF partners, UK and Netherlands have reduced their orders and plans a principal buy in 2017, Italy is suffering severe financial problems, Turkey and Canada and Denmark seem unlikely to procure any, Australia and Norway may buy a dozen total, Israel will buy 14 of the aircraft now and another 17 in 2017, South Korea wants forty aircraft but with full combat capability, and Japan may purchase 28 in the next few years. So it will be a challenge to sell 117 prototype F-35s to foreign countries, of a total of 272 aircraft including US ones, in the next nine months especially with the high and rising unit cost and also considering that these are prototype aircraft in development with unfinished testing and a faulty engine four years before a production decision.
The F-35's cost problem, the fact that the F-35A is two to three times as expensive as originally promised at $185.7 million, and increasing, is not going away with increased production. The proposed ramp-up would only increase unit costs.
para 4 should be--
ReplyDeleteOn April 8, 2014 as reported by ReutersGeneral Bogdan told senators the cost of the Air Force model of the jet stands now at around $112 million, including the engine, but the program office and industry expected to drive that cost down to between $80 million and $85 million per plane by 2019.
the fan-boys--
ReplyDelete"... they do cause other journalists and insignificant politicians (as we have recently seen in Australia) to publish utter garbage ..."
Nobody causes anything. It's truth which will prevail. I've got a list of thirty journalists, mostly foreign, and I know how to use it.
Let's get it on -- 2015 is a key year.
--Plus Solomon posted a photo of a tubby soldier recently which raised my dander to a whole new level.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Little Jimmy Dickens, who just passed at 91, I'm old but I'm loud.
"The plane is just too damn expensive and is ruining the budgets of not only the USMC but those of our allies as well"
ReplyDeleteThis is the glaring problem with the F35 IMO, even if it works as advertised (I once believed that it will, but now, Im not too optimistic. Like many, I used to be a vehement supporter of the F35).
If your nation's air force has, say 20 or 40, the lack of numbers combined with the maintenance costs and sortie rate will seriously compromise your ability to wage war, especially in a "multi-purpose" platform that is supposed to do everything.
If this little goose profoundly affects the US military, imagine what it will do to our NATO allies, who have a fraction of our defense budget per GDP percentage. That is the problem. They are already walking on thin ice.
You've got it, IMO. But many people, and many military people, have been "bought off" to get their support. Also it's primarily being sold now as a jobs program. Few (or none) in authority ever promote its performance as a fighter.
DeleteThere is this mutually exclusive paradox going on regarding my hopes for the F35.
ReplyDeleteI have been against it being bought to replace my countries F16's from just about the start of that discussion. Solomon and others make excellent points why it is not the right choice for the US either.. so I tend to hope the whole project gets scrapped soon.
But.. it is getting later and later and it is getting more and more likely that they are going to be the next major plane type for 'us'. If that happens one would obviously hope that the problems get solved soon, that we are to pessimistic about its performance and that the unit prices will drop..
Has there ever been a project that was canceled at this stage? Planes being produced and bought by air forces.. be it only a few..,contracts signed, including industrial offset ones with allied nations and so on?
For now I am still hoping for the 'bomb to burst' but the window is closing.
The F-22, because of high cost and other factors, was cut back to 187 planes. The F-22 because of its various electronic and stealth features was not exportable, so there were no foreign opportunities.
DeleteThe F-35 also has many electronic and stealth features, but it is a joint program with eight partners and also foreign military sales (FMS). How does F-35 get around the export prohibitions which were a problem for F-22? --F-35 has a "Delta" version for foreign buyers. The Pentagon paid Lockheed about three-quarters of a billion dollars to re-engineer the plane's design to allow export of sensitive components.
The three US variants have problems, known and unknown because much more test and evaluation needs to be done. Many problems have been reported by DOT&E. How do the two foreign variants perform? We don't know. How about stealth degradation, which is definitely high-tech? We don't know. All we know is that Lockheed Martin is supposed to do some testing. Are these variants even as capable as their faulty US cousins? Probably not, but we just don't know. They are different, that's for sure, and with the objective being to restrict the release of advanced technology, then the odds are that these variants are less capable. We should presume that's the case until it's proven otherwise.
Buying a less capable variant is stupidity that is on the heads of these customers. The Israeli's will likely improve the plane themselves like they do with all their planes and very possibly with some secret American help.
DeleteThe Europeans however are idiots, they get an inferior version of a fighter bomber that supposedly has one real advantage, the stealth to interdict in to highly defended target-areas. The absurdity of this is that most of these customers have not done these kind of missions, nor do they want to do them.. Look at the Dutch, they have and do sent F16's to support the US, NATO and the UN abroad, but not in the first wave. What is needed is a plane that can do 2 things well: defend against unforeseen aggression and deployment oversees for 'peacekeeping' and such. Preferably as cheap as possible, so it remains affordable.
Just about any competitor can do this better and cheaper.. but without the stealth. Even buying new F16's would be better..
Anyway.. the question I have is: how do you unravel this huge maze of contracts, commitments and investments. The article does not tell us this either.
I have searched for them and could not find any analysis on this. Finding articles detailing how to do this would certainly be a few death-nails in this flying coffin.
@Meint Veldman
DeleteNobody can predict the future, but we do know that the Pentagon is strapped for funds and will depend upon selling 117 planes to foreign customers in the next nine months in order to reduce unit costs. They have said this. But increased sales will not decrease costs, rather they would increase commitment to the F-35 which is their real objective. Get governments locked in. And hope for more domestic support.
There are many reasons why this won't work.
--the cost of the F-35A is now $185 million, and rising so unaffordable
--the engine requires redesign for flex and containment, but they won't do it
--many other problems including reliability, ALIS, performance, reliability
--a new annual test report is due shortly, and if history is a guide it won't be favorable (again)
--the Pentagon needs money for other more important programs, like nuclear forces and ships
--the early Marine IOC requires air-worthiness certification, which is questionable
--those are some knowns, there are also unknowns, and the program has enemies
This just in--
ReplyDeleteFire damages C-17 at Wright-Patterson AFB
Globemaster Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
Hey guys interesting head to head comparison between the F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f35/
The US Navy chose V-22 over C-2 and C-3 proposals for COD. Accordingly, the F135 engine cannot be air delivered to carriers. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/navy-decides-to-buy-v-22-ospreys-for-carrier-delivery/
ReplyDeleteAt last they've found a mission for the Osprey -- taxi service and package delivery for Navy ships. The fleet admiral can have his own, with Lazyboys and a bar set up.
DeleteUS allies have alternatives and can only blame themselves if it turns out that they chose a less optimal plane.
ReplyDeleteAnd they can go ahead and make their own 5:th generation fighter like Japan does.
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141123/DEFREG01/311230016/A-NATO-Fighter-
It would be interesting to see what Airbus&Boeing teaming up would result into.